Misplaced Pages

Talk:Allies of World War II: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:07, 10 September 2005 editGrant65 (talk | contribs)Administrators26,189 edits →pre-1939← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:59, 5 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 16) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|search=yes}}
==Oslo Group==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=y|vital=yes|1=
The Oslo Gorup needs to be included somewhere, because five of the six member were belligerent powers from the very early days of the War (see comment ]. Their participation did not begin with the UNO. And their involvement was certainly more extensive than ''most'' UNO allies listed, seeing the War was fought on thier territories. ] 21:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C
:Have another look at the article. They are in their their rightful place, after the Commonwealth countries.]] 08:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =n
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =y
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =y
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y
|ANZSP=y|British=y|Canadian=y|Chinese=y|French=y|Russian=y|US=y|WWII=y}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=High|mil=y}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Poland
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject China |importance=High |history=yes}}
{{WikiProject Canada |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Czech Republic|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Slovakia|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=Top |UN=yes |un-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject France |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Mexico |importance=High}}
}}
{{Merged-from|Grand Alliance (World War II)|1 April 2021}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 95K
|counter = 16
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Global map requested}}


== "Co-Belligerents" ==
It may be a good idea for purposes of introduction somewhere in the subhead "Pre-War Alliances", at the tail end of the European Theatre discussion, to include this simple sentence (or something like it): "The Oslo Group was alliance of neutral states". ] 21:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


The whole point of the "Co-belligerents" was that they ''weren't'' Allied countries. Why are we listing them in the infobox, in an article about the Allies, without sources saying that they ''were'' Allied countries? Notably none of the sources referred to above - not even the Bowman source that tries to give an extensive listing of Allied countries - includes them in their list of Allied countries. This is different to the Finnish wartime claim only to have ever been a "co-belligerent" of the Axis, since most sources just lump Finland in with the Axis anyway and describe it as having been an Axis state. Few sources (very possibly no sources), when listing the Allies, includes Finland/Italy/Romania/Bulgaria as unambiguously members of the Allies. ] (]) 08:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
==Finland==
Please present evidence ] can be considered an "informal ally". ] 21:50, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
:I never said that it was.]] 08:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
::Oops, sorry, I did say that it was. Because Finland was assisted by the Allies initially.]] 01:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Finland is gonna be a very odd subject to deal with, that's primarily why I listed the entire Oslo group. Also, Denmark (and Norway) is something of an embarassment too, because of the large number of personnel that served in various Wehrmacht and SS formations, even if the Danish government cannot be considered an Axis ally. ] 01:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, Finland is striking, as the only democracy to have joined the Axis, but the peculiar historical reasons for this are well-known. I don't think it's appropriate to discuss contributions to Axis forces in this article, especially as there were some from every Allied country (e.g. the ]). ]] 12:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


:The infobox does distinguish co-belligerents from Allies, in that it does not use the word "Allies" to refer to the co-belligerents, and makes clear they formerly fought on the Axis side. It does seem useful for the sake of completeness to have a list of all the countries that fought against Germany and Japan, whether or not they formally signed the Declaration of United Nations, etc. ] does not do that; it defers that list to the two articles on the Allies and Axis sides. Would it help to make the label even more specific like adding "non-Allies" in some way? -- ] (]) 19:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
==Sweden==
::I think there are two issues: 1) How do we classify the Allies, the anti-Axis belligerents and the signatories to the Declaration of the United Nations in the article? 2) How much information about them do we put in the Info Box?
Question:
::I don't think complex and contested information belongs in the Info Box ]. The only (almost) universally accepted information about the Allies is that there was a Big Three: Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States. Therefore this is the only information that should be in the info box. However, the Info Box should also have a category named "Other Anti-Axis nations" (or similar wording) which links to a Table in the article which lists all these nations and the date(s) they declared war on any of the Axis powers or signed the declaration of the UN. The Table could also note whether they actually took arms against an Axis power. The Table should be sortable either alphabetically or by the date they declared war (or signed a relevant document).
:'' Under neutrality rules, a neutral must intern hostile troops which cross border. During the Second World War the Swedish Government permitted Germany to transship its troops across Swedish territory to carry on the war against the Soviet Union. By the time the program ended in August, 1943, 2,140,000 German soldiers had transited Swedish rail lines. Was this a violation of Hague V? If so, why did Sweden permit Germany to ship those troops across its neutral territory?'' ] 15:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
::As for how these nations are grouped and discussed in the article, a possible structure is mostly geographic which avoids contested issues about their status as belligerents/non-belligerents/occupied powers etc. Each nation can then be discussed separately and the complexities about their status dealt with.
:: I think there was an official pretence that the passengers were not combat personnel. There was, of course, the thinly-veiled threat of Nazi invasion if Sweden had refused. Switzerland also allowed the transit of German personnel and equipment to and from Italy under similar circumstances.]] 01:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::Proposed new structure:
::1) History
::a) Origins
::b) Formation of "The Grand Alliance"
::c) United Nations
::2) Anti-Axis nations
::a) The Big Three
::b) Commonwealth of Nations (incuding India and British colonies). This could be a sub-section of the Big Three.
::c) Other European nations
::d), e), f) etc. Other American nations, Asia nations, African nations etc.
::See also the discussion above about the Info Box. ] (]) 02:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::This seems like it would be an improvement as the existing structure is a bit confusing. Certainly if the list of co-belligerents is taken out of the infobox, it should be included in the table of which nations declared war vs. actually fought, as proposed. -- ] (]) 02:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm in favour of taking the "co-belligerents" out of the infobox, because no source unambiguously identifies these as Allied nations, and in an infobox for an article about Allied nations, you would expect the countries in it to ''be <u>Allied nations</u>''.
::::For the others I think the issue is 50 countries is too long for an infobox. It's like listing all the cast of a film, or all of the players in a football team.
::::"Allied combatant" countries gives a smaller list, but no reliable source I've seen lists all the "combatant" countries. It is also not a clear-cut distinction. Consider the following examples:
::::*] so was Cuba a "combatant" based on that single incident?
::::*] so was Colombia a "combatant"?
::::*Venezuela and Panama had merchant ships sunk during the war - ]. Were ''they'' "combatants"?
::::*Vessels of many countries travelled in Allied convoys and were sunk - were these "combatants"? Even the neutrals like the Republic of Ireland?
::::*Do colonial troops make a colony a "combatant"?
::::This kind of issue is inevitable when we try to decide categories ourselves rather than just going with what reliable sources say. ] (]) 08:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've moved most of the list out of the infobox and into the "Summary table" section. The prose of the article explains the circumstances of some countries in detail already, but for the remainder, there is now space to explain the fuzzy boundaries.
:::::It's certainly interesting to know the extent to which each country was militarily involved in the war. That could be done in summary by adding a fourth column to the table indicating each country's contribution. The Big Three might be something like "Land invasion, naval bombardment, air raids, espionage" whereas others might be "Munitions, U-boat attack" with a link to the related article. This would "show not tell" and avoid making a classification as to what counts for "combatant" status. It also means the "co-belligerents" could be included, just marking them as not signing the various Allied documents. -- ] (]) 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)


== Foreign languages in Info Box ==
== USSR ==


Hello all
Is it right that the USSR shown as "initially German ally" ?


I don't see any reason why the French, Russian and Chinese words for Allies are listed at the head of the info box. I suggest we remove them for the following reasons:
USSR never participated in anti-comintern pact and nither declared war on Poland in
1941 (but protected some areas of Ukraine and Belorussia, earlier annexed by Poland, from Nazis). USSR occupied this area only when Polish government ended resistance to Germans and left the country. Polish goverment ordered not to resist the USSR army.


1) This is the English language Misplaced Pages so we should only list the English name of the article.
Also USSR participated in Spanish civil war AGAINST Germany and Italy.


2) The information isn't sourced and as far as I can see isn't mentioned in the article.
In fact, before 1941 USSR was neutral according to the international law.--] 07:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


3) If we are going to list the foreign language terms for the Allies why only the French, Chinese and Russian terms? France and China aren't even listed in the info box as part of the Big Three.
:Soviet Union invaded Poland with Nazi Germany in September 1939.
:It is not true that:
:*''USSR protected some areas from the Nazis'': they had ] signed just in the end of August 1939 that shared the "zones of influence", just before both countries invaded Poland.


4) In any event, the links to "French", "Chinese" and "Russian" should be removed. These are common English words and don't need to be linked ]
::But this does not make USSR a military ally of Germany. --] 07:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


:::Yes, it does. Poland never asked Soviets to invade the country. --] <sup>(])</sup> 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Happy to discuss. ] (]) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
: Makes sense. ] (]) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


== Hungary an Allied power? ==
:*''USSR occupied this area only when Polish government ended resistance to Germans and left the country'': the Soviets invaded Poland 10 days before Warsaw capitulated to the Nazis.
:--] <sup>(])</sup> 19:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


An editor has recently added Hungary as one of the Allied powers in the Soviet zone of influence. As far as I know, the there was no recognised government of Hungary which fought on the Allied side. A provisional government was appointed by the Soviet Union in the areas it occupied and some Hungarian volunteer units fought with the Soviet army, but more fought against both the Soviets and the Arrow Cross. This article is getting to the absurd point that all the main Axis powers are also portrayed as allied powers if one of the Allies appointed a puppet government on any part of its territory. One problem is that one of the cited sources is in Russian with no translation. Under policy, the relevant sections of foreign language sources should be translated into English so that English speaking editors can assess their reliability as sources. ].
:: Yes, but Polish government escaped from the country, leaving the city facing Nazis. Remember that USSR always proposed the Poles protection against Nazis before the war, but they always regused --] 07:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


@] Could you provide a translation of this Russian source? As far as I know, the provisional Hungarian government was established by the occupying Soviet power and didn't hold national elections until after the war.
:::Where do you invent all these things from ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


] (]) 11:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: This is an ABC.


:@] the provisional government was established in december 1944, and in january 1945 it signed an armistice with the ussr and the western allies (what means that it was at least de facto recognized) - you can read its text . this provisional government was formed by the provisional parliament formed by the ], so it was not just appointed, it was formed on a relatively democratic basis, its just that the elections were idirect and the party composition of the govt was agreed with moscow. from its behalf, the government of hungary promised to form 8 divisions allied with the ussr and began the mobilization of volunteers to the new army which was being created by the nkvd in pow camps; some companies of these volunteers and larger units and military engineering brigades were sent at the front, the largest unit was the ]. hungarian government managed to form only 2 divisions of the promised 8, and they were sent at the front when germany signed the capitulation.
::This document here "League of Nations Expulsion of the the USSR" should put to rest claims of (1) Soviet "neutralitiy" prior to 1941, and (2) claims the USSR did not engage in a War of Aggression, i.e. Crimes Against Peace. ] 21:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


so it didnt have an actual big army, but it was recognized, and these small units were loyal to this government; since a czech battalion of the red army is enough to include czechoslovakia into the list of participants of the war in 1943, and since a de jure croatian regiment is enough to include croatia as a full participant on the eastern front, i dont see why units loyal to this (recognized) government are not enough to include hungary] (]) 11:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ligue of nations was an anti-Soviet organization, many years they refused the USSR with its membership. This organization was made by Entente countries - the countries that invaded Russia after the revolution.
:wdym by "but more fought against both the Soviets and the Arrow Cross"? ] (]) 11:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:also one of the sources i cited, "the hungarian royal army in ww2", is in english; i cant fully read it cuz google books doesnt allow me to but it seems that it describes more or less the same stuff as the book in russian ] (]) 11:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree that there is a problem with the inclusion of other states as "Allies". I think this whole section on "Client and Occupied states" doesn't belong in this article because it is discussing things other than the Allies of WWII. I am aware that a provisional government was set up by the Soviet Union in Soviet occupied areas following partial "elections" in those areas. I am also aware that this provisional government signed an armistice with the Soviet Union. However, I am not aware that it signed the Declaration of the United Nations before the end of the war or fielded an army of its own. My understanding is that the Hungarian forces in the occupied areas were volunteers, POWS and conscripts and they served in the Soviet Army. My understanding is also that the Horthy government also signed an armistice with the Soviet Union in October 1944 and that many in the regular Hungarian army were still loyal to the former government and continued to fight into April 1945. ] (]) 11:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've read the English source. I will look up the other sources you mentioned. In the meantime how about we say, "Following elections in the Soviet occupied areas of Hungary, a ] ]] was established in the Soviet-occupied city of Debrecen on December 22, 1944. The provisional government signed an armistice with the Soviet Union in January 1945 and began forming small military units to assist the USSR, the largest of which was the ]. Following the Soviet occupation of Budapest in February 1945 and the collapse of the Iron Cross government in March, the Provisional National Government became the temporary semi-independent government of Hungary under the supervision of the Soviet Union. ] (]) 12:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::"subordinate to the Soviet-dominated Allied Control Commision" would be correct i think
::their relations are described in laszlo kontler's "A History of Hungary: Millennium in Central Europe" but he doesnt mention the 1944 elections ] (]) 12:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::or like "subordinate to Allied Control Commision" set up/maintained/idk by the USSR ] (]) 12:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


:What do RS say? ] (]) 12:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::And, at the end, they excluded USSR NOT for Polish events, but protecting Finland - a country with highly anti-Soviet, reactionist and pro-fascist regime, a (future) member of Hitler's anti-Comintern pact.
:::We should keep 'de jure' position - all other is a propaganda. - USSR was de jure neutral, in spite of the fact that it participated in wars in Spain and Finland AGAINST pro-fascist regimes.--] 07:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Since when do you call invasion - "protecting" ?

:I sad that the Ligue was protecting Finland from the USSR.--] 18:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:That's beautiful. How could possibly Soviets be neutral if they attacked Poland and then (without even declaring war) and then other countries as well ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:: What countries did attack USSR AFTER Poland? --] 18:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:: Why didnt you say USSR was anti-fascist ally, if it was fighting against fascists in Spain ans Finland? Is Poland MORE IMPORTANT? Note: lend-lease goods&materials started to come to USSR from England&USA BEFORE 1941.--] 18:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:::And, at the end, they excluded USSR NOT for Polish events, but protecting Finland - a country with highly anti-Soviet, reactionist and pro-fascist regime, a (future) member of Hitler's anti-Comintern pact.
:::We should keep 'de jure' position - all other is a propaganda. - USSR was de jure neutral, in spite of the fact that it participated in wars in Spain and Finland AGAINST pro-fascist regimes.--] 07:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Since when do you call invasion - "protecting" ? That's beautiful. How could possibly Soviets be neutral if they attacked Poland and then (without even declaring war) and then other countries as well ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
:USSR was expelled because of the League's ] ability to foresee Finland joining the ]. What flawless logic! ] 18:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Soviet Union started World War II, along with Nazi Germany, right after signing the secret Hitler-Stalin Pact, a military non-aggression pact, that secretly divided eastern Europe up into zones of influence for the Russians and Germans to conquer, without getting into each other's way. The Pact specified which territories were to go to which invader. "You can have this; and we'll take this", is a pretty fair summary, I think. Basically, the Hitler-Stalin Pact was the blueprint for WWII. Pretty neutral.-Ned.(Sept.)

==Polish partisans? ==

Please read the material in your own , ].

"Польские партизаны" произвели несколько диверсий на территории Советского Союза,

This states: "Polish partisans" started diversion Soviet territory. It does not say where. If anything, it must have meant Eastern Poland, occupied by the Soviets in 1939. Even that is not credible to me, as from all sources I have read the Polish Underground in those areas never really had a chance to develop before 1941. Anyway, that statement is '''NOT''' evidence for Polish partisans on the Soviet-Finnish front.

There were plans to send the Polish ''Podhalańska'' Brigade to Finland as part of the British-French-Polish help to Finland, but they were never actually carried out.

This reference as a whole is pushing a strongly biased pro-Soviet point of view and is not credible. The following statement just about completely disqualifies it:

Есть еще одна весьма показательная по своей фабуле история битвы за душу народа", так называемое "катынское дело".
Она требует особого рассмотрения в рамках "неисследованной мятеж-войны", но представляется достаточно хорошо изученной, в качестве примера международной провокации против России с участием историков и демократов типа Волкогонова и Яковлева в период с 1987 по 2000 гг.

In short, it states the the ] was an "anti-Russian provocation". This is revisionism of the worst kind.

] 18:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


:OK, may be this sentence is an offtopic for this article. One could add of course Polish crimes against Jews and Ukrainian nationalists' crimes against Poles, which is MUCH bigger then Katyn tragedy but it is also offtopic --] 19:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

::Sorry Nixer, you're trolling now. --] <sup>(])</sup> 19:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

::From some random I found via Google on the web, Poland did consider itself to be in a state of war with USSR between September, 1939 and the summer of 1941. However, no formal declaration of war was ever proclaimed. Around September 17, 1939 the Polish goverment was in flight and too disorganised to declare war. When it reformed itself in France later in the fall, the pressure of France and Britain prevented Poland from formally declaring war. Please, if anyone has a good link in English that deals with this, please post it here. ] 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
:::One can imagine if one's country is invaded one whould consider themself at war. One can also imagine, if one's counrty is invaded, a formal declaration of war against the aggressor is not a requirement or necessary. ] 21:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Still, that is what is usually done. That's what the US did after Pearl Harbor (). The fact that Poland did not formally declare war left its position ambiguous. Some historians argue it was a significant mistake, as it seemed to have legitimised Soviet Union's claim that its invasion of Poland was not an act of war. At the same time, there would have been little point declaring war alone without France and Britain. ] 22:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
::::: Do you mean it may have legitimized FDR & Churchill for selling them down the river? ] 22:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::: If you mean that it may have made it easier for them to do it, yes. Still, such a declaration would have been symbolic anyway and in the end could not have mattered that much. The fact was that there was no way the West would start World War III to fight for the freedom of Eastern Europe and Stalin knew that very well and acted accordingly. ] 23:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Why didnt you say USSR was anti-fascist ally, if it was fighting against fascists in Spain ans Finland? Is Poland MORE IMPORTANT? Note: lend-lease goods&materials started to come to USSR from England&USA BEFORE 1941.
:::::::And, at the end, they excluded USSR NOT for Polish events, but protecting Finland - a country with highly anti-Soviet, reactionist and pro-fascist regime, a (future) member of Hitler's anti-Comintern pact.
:::::::We should keep 'de jure' position - all other is a propaganda. - USSR was de jure neutral, in spite of the fact that it participated in wars in Spain, Finland and Japan AGAINST pro-fascist regimes.
:::::::Note, that Poland was a pro-fascist state before German invasion, there were enabled anti-semitic laws and anti-semitic propaganda in Poland. Some Jews even said that it was more comfortable for them to live in Germany than in Poland at that time.--] 07:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed, Poland had some strong anti-semitic parties in the 1930-s but that has nothing to do with being fascist and certainly nothing with Nazi and Soviet invasion in September 1939. You're trolling again. --] <sup>(])</sup> 07:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::I am not about parties, I am about laws. And as you know, all Jewish and Ukrainian population in Warsaw were killed during the Warsaw uspring, even those who survived Nazis. --]
::::::::::All Jewish and Ukrainian population in Warsaw was killed in Warsaw Uprising ? I'm sorry, this is complete bulshit. I don't even know how to comment this. --] <sup>(])</sup> 08:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::But the matter is that the USSR participated in wars with Finland, fascist regime in Spain and Japan - all German allies - and Poland only - not German ally. So why you call USSR a German ally?--] 08:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::Maybe because of the secret protocol to Ribbentrop-Molotov pact that sanctioned the invasion of both aggressors ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 08:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::This might be relevant to our discussion. ] 12:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::This is the preamble of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact:
_____

The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental
provisions of the '''Neutrality''' Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement:

_____

Правительство СССР и Правительство Германии
руководимые желанием укрепления дела мира между СССР и Германией и
исходя из основных положений Договора о '''нейтралитете''', заключенного
между СССР и Германией в апреле 1926 года, пришли к следующему
соглашению:

_____

:::::::::::It states that Germany and USSR are neutral each to other. There was NO any other military alliance between USSR and Germany. So '''de jure''' USSR was not an ally of Germany.--] 20:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)



Except, of course, that the pact was publicly proclaimed as a non-aggression pact (a near-alliance), but it was the '''secret protocol''' that was the real agreement for a coordinated attack on, or tolerance of the other's attacks on, nonbelligerent countries. Which is a military alliance, now matter how you wish to obfuscate the matter. Neutral states do not dance arm-in-arm in the streets of Brest. ] 21:11:20, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

:Secret protocol is in no contradiction with the preamble.--] 23:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

::Firstly, knowing Soviet and Nazi political doctrine, no serious historian would take such words for their face value. Remember that Soviets used to "fight for peace" with their armies ? The real intentions count and they are proven by the immediate result of signing the pact, which was the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland the following month.

:::Soviet and Nazi ideology have nothing in common.--] 08:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

::::Yes they have something in common: ], but it does not matter here. As I explained above, it is the facts that counts. They did sign the alliance, used the "neturality agreement" ] for its title, and immediately did what they agreed to in the secret protocol: invaded their neighbour and started WW2. --] <sup>(])</sup> 09:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

::Secondly, as you probably know, Soviets denied the existence of the secret protocol for many years after the end of WW2. Why do you think they would be doing it ?

:::May be for political reasons, and what? Many countries keep secret documens for long time - may be there exist even more impressing documents in archives of Britain or Vatican.--] 08:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

::::It's not that they kept it secret, it's that they denied it existed. For political reasons, exactly. You are right. The political reason was that it proved their alliance with Nazis, while without the secret protocol the pact would seem like an ordinary peace treaty. --] <sup>(])</sup> 09:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

::Finally, the secret protocol specifically discussed the fate of then independent countries, including Poland, the Baltics and Finland. It even made provisions for setting up a border between Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany along rivers within neighbouring Poland. A neutrality agreement ? A nice try. --] <sup>(])</sup> 06:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes, literally neutrality. Or it could be called an ally of both Axis and Allies, which can not be true.

:::So USSR started its participation in WW2 by protecting Mongolia from Japan forces. Why dont you say it was ally of Mongolia and China? Why do you say USSR is an ally of Axis?--] 08:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

::::Well, it's been already clearly explained above. Why do you keep asking again ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 09:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:::::Why dont you call China ally of Axis? Germany helped China at early stages of war with Japan.--] 09:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
:::::Even in WWI page USA is not called an ally in spite of the fact that they fully participated in war with Germany because they did not have an official treaty of alliance with the Entente. But you CALL USSR an ally of Germany, without any official alliance too.
:::::Why dont call Poland a German ally because it occupied a part of Chechoslovakia?
::::: USSR NEVER been a German alley, NOT de jure, NOT de facto. --] 09:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Soviet and Nazi ideology have nothing in common." Very funny, Nixer. They were both totalitarian, expansionist dictatorships happy to kill millions of their own people, invade other countries, featured a personality cult, etc. You cannot justify the barbarism of either state. ] 09:27:41, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

:It is proven that all wards about "totalitarism" is a pure propaganda, intended to state that USSR and Nazi Germany does not differ, which is a revisionism in its essence. There is no ''totalitarian'' ideology. In fact, many European regimes, even allied and neutral were much closer to Germany in their ideology.--] 09:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest you move this discussion to the talk pages of ] article, where it more properly belongs. Then all the people on Misplaced Pages interested in the issue can contribute. ] 12:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:Gentlemen. This article is about the Allies. The operations of the Non-Alignment Pact and the carving-up of Eastern Europe should be dealt with in the appropriate articles. Thank you. ]] 15:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

==Disputed tag==

Quick recap: Nixer insists on reverting to a factually and chronologically incorrect description of the events around the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939. This on top of his attempt to eliminate any hint of the extensive cooperation between Germany and USSR in the years 1939-1941. ] 13:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:As I've said above, the article is about the Allies of WW2, not the operations of the Non-Alignment Pact, or the carving-up of central Europe in 1936-41. Those matters should only be dealt with at length in other articles and I will personally delete any irrelevant and/or ideological/nationalistic material. By the way, military cooperation between the USSR and Germany went back to the early 1920s, when the ] formed a relationship with the Bolsheviks, to get around the restrictions placed on the German military by the ]. ]] 00:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
::First, thank you for your neutral and useful edits. As you know, many countries cooperated and traded with Germany: Poland (before 1939), USA (officially up to 1941, non-officially even later, for instance, Nazi used IBM machines to calculate their victims), Sweden (Nazi used Swedish bombs in bombings of London and Amsterdam), China (up to 1939), Turkey, Spain, Iran, many South-American countries. But we do not call them German allies. So, if to mention collaboration between USSR and Germany, we should mension cooperation between all these countries and Germany also.--] 00:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:::I think that all nations that supported the Nazi German war machine through any form of trade should be held accountable, to various degrees. For example Sweden, in my opinion, gets off too easily in most accounts of World War II, being described as a neutral country where in fact it supplied Germany with large amounts of high grade steel, absolutely essential to the German war effort. I would certainly describe Sweden as an '''economic ally''' of Germany through the whole war. Of course it must be said in Sweden's defence that it was a small country which would have been easily conquered by Germany if it did not fulfill its wishes.

:::In a similar way the Soviet supplies of raw materials to Germany do deserve a special mention, given their significance to the German war effort in the years 1939-1941. Furthermore, these were supplies delivered directly by the Soviet government, in contrast to, say, the case of IBM which was an American company not under control of the American government. IBM as a company should certainly be held accountable for their cooperation with Germany, but the United States as a country should not be faulted to the same extent.

:::The undeniable fact remains that the Soviet Union, through its supplies of oil and raw materials to Hitler's regime, faciliated its conquest of much of Western Europe. This was a catastrophic decision, as of course right after conquering France and thus securing the Western front Hitler turned against the Soviet Union. The Soviets were strong enough to simply refuse to trade with or cooperate economically in any other way with Germany (as opposed to Sweden or Switzerland), and yet they did it enthusiastically. Even Nixer admits that this policy of Stalin was a blunder. ] 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:This is the classic case of hindsight. The idea that the whole world shouldn't have had trade relations with a nation of 60 million people, which was at the time, and is today, the economic heart & powerhouse of Europe, is ludicrous. Also, it's the classic case of calling all Germans "Nazis". Also, it's the classic case of imaginary psychic powers, that in 1939, 1940, and 1941, any person, corporation, or government that had any trade relationship with Germans (read "Nazis"), failing to use thier psychic powers, should have foreseen genocide and the holocaust. Also, it fails to take into consideration that Hitler justified genocide as a "conspiracy of International finance", i.e. international boycotts against trade with Germany. We have a parellal today with trade with China. It is a murderous regime, which has built its power by terror. Yet the idea that 1/4 of the planet's population can be isolated from international trade is likewise ludicrous, not without harmful effects to the people who refuse to trade with them. I would suggest a discussion like this be a little more qualified by economic realities, rather than this '''pretense''' to moral superiority that always seems to pervade these issues. ] 03:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well put Nobs. ]] 12:42, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

::::Let me wax philosophical here, if you don't mind. We know now, in hindsight, that Hitler's regime was the most evil in the history of humanity (by widely held concensus). Maybe at the time it might have seemed to leaders of Sweden, say, that trading with Nazi Germany after the start of World War II was morally neutral. As the war went on and Sweden found out more and more about Nazi atrocities, they retreated further and further behind the screen of "neutrality" and kept on delivering ore to Germany right up until the very end of the war in 1945, believing themselves to be innocent. Now, I would argue, we know better. And if we are to learn from history, we must learn its objective lessons. We must face the fact that certain policies were evil, even if they seemed neutral to the leaders of the time. Otherwise, how are we to learn from history?

::::The sad fact is that even the most evil of rulers believe in their own minds that their actions are good and praiseworthy, or at the very least "justified". Very few people are consciously evil. They usually invent for themselves one kind of justification or another. The fiction of being a "neutral" country while supporting economically Hitler's conquests was one of those justifications. In short, the standard "it was all right, because the people at the time thought it was all right" is quite simply not a sufficient guideline for good historical analysis. ] 17:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:::::You're right. So may be we should start a new article about cooperation of neutral (and even enemy) states and international organizations (Red Cross, Holy See for instance) with Nazi regime and violations of neutrality?--] 18:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the discussion about foreign trade belongs to this article. It was perfectly all right for Soviet Russia to supply Hitler with whatever they wanted. However, pretending that they were not allied in the beginning of WW2 on the ground that the "secret protocol" was secret, makes this article highly POV biased as I explained before. I don't think that revert warring will lead us anywhere, especially that Nixer notorioulsy ignores 3RR. I'm therefore restoring the accuracy tag. --] <sup>(])</sup> 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

===Summary===
] insists on not mentioning that Soviet Union was initially allied with Nazi Germany, after having signed the ]. He explains that the pact was named a "peace treaty" and therefore was not a formal alliance.
] insists that the fact of Nazi-Soviet alliance is kept in the article, for preserving the historical context of the later Soviet presence within the ]. Wojsyl claims that in spite of the peacefully sounding name, the Nazi-Soviet pact was in fact an alliance, because of the secret protocol in which the signatories agreed on establishing the border between them within territory of independent Poland. According to Wojsyl, the subsequent facts (Nazi and Soviet invasion of Poland next month) confirm this. Nixer claims that the sole purpose of the Soviet invasion was protection of civilians against the Nazis. --] <sup>(])</sup> 19:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:Wojsyl hits the nail on the head. Amen. ] 19:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
===Dispute===
So Poland was then also an ally of Germany (before German invasion in Poland) in spite the fact it invaded Czechoslovakia WITHIOUT any treaty, even Munich agreement did not allow Poland to do so (in opposition of Germany, which was allowed invade Czechoslovakia by Munich treaty). Hitler strictly supported Polish demands in Czechoslovakia.--] 20:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:That is not the point of this particular dispute. But indeed, Polish annexation of the disputed Czechoslovak territories in 1938 was independent from the Nazis. --] <sup>(])</sup> 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:If I remember correctly, Poland took Cieszyn without signing any agreement with the Germans beforehand. Poland simply exploited German pressure on Czechoslovakia by presenting its own ultimatum which the Czechs felt forced to accept.

::Without feeling Hitler support Poland, Czechoslovakia would be able to resist Polish offensive.--] 20:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:::You're loosing the focus again. What offensive ? There was no "Polish offensive". --] <sup>(])</sup> 21:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:::This is misleading. Sure, if no one else was involved, Czechoslovakia would be able to resist Poland militarily. But there was no prospect of that scenario. Germany was determined to destroy Czechoslovakia, by first taking the crucial border areas where all Czech fortifications were.
::::So Poland and Germany were allies - without help from Germany Poland was unable to occupy the areas of Czechoslovakia. Note that Poland also helped Finland in its war against USSR. Only Hitler's attack against HIS ALLY POLAND made Poland a country of anti-Hitler coalition.--] 21:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:::::Poland and Germany found that temporarily their interests converged, as both had territorial claims on Czechoslovakia. But they were not allies, according to the formal definition of the term. If you think otherwise, please tell me when exactly the Polish-German military alliance was signed? Which document should one refer to?] 22:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
::::::Could we say Poland and Germany were allies '''de facto'''?--] 22:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:::::Balcer, I beg you, ]. --] <sup>(])</sup> 22:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
::::::I will take Wojsyl's advice and take a break from this discussion for a bit. Really, the proper place for this subject would be the talk page of ] or some similar article. ] 23:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:::France and Britain agreed with German demands in the hope that this would prevent war. It was clear Czechoslovakia was being dismantled. Seeing all this, Poland demanded and got from the Czechs its own little piece, a tiny slice of about 1% of Czech territory, inhabited by a large number of Poles. All this was done peacefully without a shot being fired.

::::Would you say that there were many battles between USSR and Polish forces?--] 21:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:::::Not that many since most of the Polish army was deployed on the Western direction, but enough (see ], for example). Close to 1000 Soviet soldiers were killed during the invasion. ] 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:::All in all, in the runup to the war, this was a minor episode of very limited significance. ] 21:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:::::Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia also were inhabited mostly not with Poles--] 21:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
::::::Well, they were not inhabited by Russians or Soviets either. Anyway, USSR took more than half of Poland, Cieszyn was 1% of Czechoslovakia. Surely you must understand the orders of magnitude difference here. Plus, for what it's worth, Poland took Cieszyn peacefully with agreement from the Czech government. USSR simply invaded Poland and got the territories by force of arms. ] 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Did I understood correctly - If anybody takes your purse, holding a knife at your neck - he takes it not by force? Or Poland did not plan invade Czechoslovakia in the case of refuse?--] 22:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

::::Balcer, let's try not to discuss every other topic here, but stay focused on the question of whether Nazi-Soviet alliance should be omitted or not in the article. --] <sup>(])</sup> 21:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:Poland's seizure of Cieszyn was in many ways shameful and stupid, but it did not make Poland an ally of Germany by any reasonable legal definition. ] 20:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

::Huh, may be Hitler was also annoyed by the fact that he should divide Polish territories with Stalin - in fact he did not need any "allies" to defeat Polish army.--] 20:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
:::I think he did not. But why did the Soviets sign the alliance in which they agreed for a border on ] then ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 21:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

----

:Question: How many square miles did Germany occupy and how many square miles did USSR occupy? ] 20:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
::Maybe you'll find ] helpful. The border according to the threaty was set up on rivers San, Vistula and Narew. The picture is from September 25, a day after city of Warsaw was bombed by 1150 Germain aircraft. Warsaw surrendered on September 27, the last major battle of the campaign was fought on October 5. --] <sup>(])</sup> 21:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This map excellently describes the situation. It looks like Poland was being predatorily divided up to me. It reminds me of something out of National Geographic. -Ned (Sept.)

==China==
Which China "commenced full scale hostilities" against Japan? Being that this is in the Intro, it is very important to clarify (we'll leave the discussion as to who "commenced hostilities" til later). ] 23:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

:July 7, 1937, as it says in the article. ]] 13:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

::I'm referring to, was it Nationalist China, or Comintern affiliated China (Chaing or Mao)? ] 17:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Does anyone dispute that China as a whole was at war with Japan in 1937-45? Both Nationalists and Communists fought the Japanese, in addition to occasionally fighting each other. ]] 00:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
::::This does need to be clarified; I suggest it simply is easier to do so now rather than later. ] 01:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What needs to be clarified? The people of both the present day People's Republic of China and the Republic of China were both at war with Japan from 1937. "China" covers both of them. ]] 06:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
:An article is going to be written on the ]; as well as a full explaination of the activities of Mr. ] in the U.S Treasury Dept. This all relates to the ] of ]'s ] and the founding of the ]. By 1949, one of the primary cornerstones that the post-war world was to be built upon, was subverted. All these issues will be discussed and written about. So it needs to be clarified either now or later. As of now, the use of a generic, geographic reference to "China" simply repeats the lies & bullshit that has been part of the writing of history ''prior'' to release of ] documents, opening of ] Archives, and other recent developments in declassification. So it's a simple choice, continue spewing the lies of the past half century, or begin investigating and reporting facts. ] 21:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Does the two China situation have any direct relationship to the Allies of World War II? If so, I would like to hear how, especially since both of the Chinas were at war with Japan. ]] 03:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
:One China was an ally of the United States; another China was an ally of the Soviet Union. Stalin refused to meet with ] at the ], one of the founding conferences of the ] (see ]); Chaing kai-shek and the ] were one of the founding members of the UNO. Thus Churchill & FDR met separately in the ]. Meantime, a concerted effort within the United States Government, of agents working on behalf of the ], subverted President Roosevelt's policy of support for the Republic of China (]). The Republic of China did sign as the ] in ], however, by 1949 the ] affiliated ], with the aid of ] operatives within the United States Government, effectively subverted official, stated, American policy and support for the Kuomintang. The Congress of the United States passed legislations in this support, including direct monetary support. The ], under ], refused to transfer the funds appropriated by Congress, and promised by FDR to Chaing Kai-shek. The funds were to stabilize the Chinese currency. Inflation hit 1000%, the Republic of China lost popular support, and the Comintern affiliated CCP overthrew the legitimate government of China. By 1950, when the subversion became more than apparent, the U.S. then was at war with two of its previous allies, the USSR & the people of China, in the Korean War. And the whole foundation of the post-World War II international cooperation, i.e. the United Nations, was put in question.
:This is just a thumbnail sketch. The investigation into the Treasury Department is only one aspect, and it took 12 years. It wasn't even commenced until 5 years after White's death. The Report took two years to write. There has always been much confusion around these issues, and we can begin by helping unraveling the confusion, rather than perpetualing the myths. ] 04:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
::See ; the ''Morgenthau Diary (China)'', of which the ] description of "records at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library selected to illustrate the implementation of Roosevelt administration policy in China," there are only 150 copies in existence. ] 04:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what's your point? Both "Chinas" were fighting Japan, so no distinction is required. ]] 08:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Or rather there was only one China at the time, and the ] article relates to a series of regimes over thousands of years, not just the ]. Anyone seeing the ] mentioned in this article now could be forgiven for thinking that it refers to the country generally known as ], (when in fact ] was a Japanese colony at the time and many Formosans served in the Japanese military). On that basis, I'm changing the refernce in the first paragraph to ]. ]] 14:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

:How about removing the whole first paragraph:
::''World War II is generally considered to have begun in ] in ]. Some historians have argued that it began on ], ], when ] responded to the ] and engaged the ] in full-scale hostilities (which continued until ]). However, this conflict (at least prior to ], ]), is usually regarded as being the ]. World War II is usually dated from the ], on ], 1939.''
:altogether from the article ? It does not bring anything as for the alliances, and only speculates about then the WW2 started. These speculations do not belong here anyway. Or maybe move it to the footnoe, if you consider this information vital. If it stays however, the issues of which China was involved need to be clarified beyond doubts. This is an encyclopedia here. --] <sup>(])</sup> 14:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
:::Even using the 1937 date would be questionable, as the ] of 1931 or the ] of 1927 "some historians" use as the starating point. Then, if we go back that far we'd have to include the ], Italian invasion of Ethiopia, etc. I second the motionb to remove it. ] 16:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
:Grant: the confusion over CCP & Taiwan is resolved easily by using the proper regime name, ]. The arguement about how they both were fighting Japan pales in light of the fact that our principal ally, the Soviet Union, actively was at war with our principal ally, the Kuomintang, and ultimately subverted our principal ] objectives as to ''why'' we were fighting ] in the first place, why Americans were willing to shed thier own blood. Plus numerous other factors to be considered. Simply put, the disinformation campaign that we aided ], and ] was an ally leads to these links ]; which then leads you to this ] and this ]. Clearly, "China" in the context of the 1930s is a geographic reference, not a poltical ally.] 17:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
===Lend Lease===
Grant: Let spell it out another way: Congress authorized ] aid to the Soviet Union & the Kuomintang; the Soviet Union channelled Lend Lease from the United States to the ]. So in the eyes of many Chinese, the United States supplied both Kuomintang & CCP with weapons so the Chinese would kill themselves. This certainly was ''not'' U.S. stated policy, nor its objectives; but in truth & reality, it is what happened. And many Chinese today (and others around the world) clearly remember this. ] 17:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The CCP and KMT were both fighting Japan, it's as simple as that. The ] started in 1937 and continued until 1945. And no, I don't want to remove the first paragraph. ]] 00:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I understand what you are saying; it's simply not relevant to the article. ]] 00:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:It is extrememly relevent, and it is exactly this inattention to detail that brought about the subversion uf US policy. 1995 is the date of departure for historical revisionism which will take place. It may take decades. But much of what is known about, assumed, and taught in schools, regarding the the deacdes of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s will be rewritten. ] 01:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

==China, Part 2==
What does any of the above have to do with who was fighting who in WW2? How is it relevant to the article that there was a different regime in China in 1937? I suggest, in fact, that to say ] instead of ] is seriously misleading: the ] was also fighting the Japanese and therefore the present regime was fighting in 1937. ] covers both entities. ]] 11:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:American funding to it's ally, the Soviet Union, to fight the Axis, was being transfered to fight Americans ally, the Kuomintang. To Refer to the CCP in 1937 (which can fit the modern definition of a terrorist organization) as "China" is misleading. In no sense can the CCP be referred to as "China" in 1937. It was not a legitimate government; it was actively engaged in illegal acts under International Law at that time to remove a legitimate government; it was funded by illegal acts of subversion; and its primary belligerency was directed against the legitimate government, not Japan. Again, to refer to the CPP as "China" in 1937 is a blatant falsehood. If source information, other than the CCP, or U.S. government files other than those that wittingingly or unwittingly can be developed, to prove the CCP was activiely carrying on some belligerency against Japan in 1937, than the proper thing to do is list both ] and ] (or the so-called ] of China). This may be the best solution for now. ] 14:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
:: Once again, the article is not about parties or regimes within Allied countries, especially when all concerned were fighting Axis forces. According to ], Chiang was forced at gunpoint to form an alliance with the CCP. Hardly sounds like the reds were unenthusiastic! ]] 22:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, there is another issues that must be considered here; there is a wealth of information in Misplaced Pages on Chinese involvement in WWII, some written by editors sympathetic to the Chinese Nationalist, some obviously carrying the present day ] version of events. This volume of material likewise must be dealt with. No sense us compounding the problem here when it is within our power to strive for clarity. ] 00:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
According to the ], the ] had 1,700,000 men in 1937, and the ] 70,000 . All this information needs to be checked against what is in Misplaced Pages already. Epoch Times states for example,
*"The CCP labeled the “Long March” as a northbound anti-Japanese operation. It trumpeted the “Long March” as a Chinese revolutionary fairy tale. It claimed that the “Long March” was a “manifesto,” a “propaganda team” and a “seeding machine,” which ended with the CCP’s victory and their enemies’ defeat.

*"The CCP fabricated such obvious lies about marching north to fight the Japanese to cover its failures. " and,

*"The CCP realized that if it were to face battle with the Japanese, it would not be able to defeat even a single division of the Japanese troops. In the eyes of the CCP, sustaining its own power rather than ensuring the survival of the nation was the central focus of the emphasis on “national unity.” Therefore, during its cooperation with the KMT, the CCP exercised an internal policy of “giving priority to the struggle for political power, which is to be disclosed internally and realized in actual practice.” and

*"CCP fought shoulder to shoulder with Japanese invaders to defeat the KMT" and

*"they only had local armies and guerrilla forces in camps away from the front lines. Except for a few battles, including the one fought at Pingxing Pass, '''the CCP did not make much of a contribution to the war against the Japanese at all'''. Instead, they spent their energy expanding their own base. '''When the Japanese surrendered, the CCP incorporated the surrendering soldiers into its army''', claiming to have expanded to more than 900,000 regular soldiers, in addition to 2 million militia fighters. '''The KMT army was essentially alone on the frontlines while fighting the Japanese''', losing over 200 marshalls in the war. The commanding officers on the CCP side bore nearly no losses. '''However, the textbooks of the CCP constantly claimed that the KMT did not resist the Japanese, and that it was the CCP that led the great victory in the anti-Japanese war'''.

All this material must be addressed (See , to the end of Part II). ] 03:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

:I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on the respective war efforts of the KMT and CCP. It has nothing to do with the issue. China is China is China is China. And all of it was at war with Japan in 1937-45. ]] 10:08, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

::May be we should expecitly mention that BOTH CCP and KMT were in war with Japan?--] 13:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

:::] ] & ] should not be considered the factual basis for a ] article. ] 16:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

::::So they weren't both at war with Japan? ]] 23:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be taking place on ] and much of the material added to this article (regarding Soviet and German support for China) should be moved to that article. It relates to earlier periods and has no direct relationship to the Allies of WW2.]] 23:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
:The above reference material, specifically
::''"Except for a few battles, including the one fought at Pingxing Pass, the CCP did not make much of a contribution to the war against the Japanese at all" and
::''"When the Japanese surrendered, the CCP incorporated the surrendering soldiers into its army"
:is sufficient to suspect any CCP contributions outside ] and the ], unless references ''other than'' the CCP can be cited to assert such claims, or it can be properly sourced those battles occurred in ]. ] 23:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

:Also, we've laboriously made the distinction between the ] and the ] (the Sikorski Regime and the Rokossovsky Regime); the same distinction must be made here. All ] organizations need to be properly indentified, WWII in large measure was a War against the Comintern. Hitler's rise to power is attributed to stopping the Comintern from taking over Germany. This document , German Foreign Minister to the German Ambassador in Moscow dated 21 June 1941 cites "Comintern activity" as the cause of the ]. ] 00:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

::And just as it is enough to say that Poland was at war with Germany in 1939-45 and at war with the USSR in 1939-42, it is enough to say that China was at war with Japan in 1937-45. It is so absurd to say that the CCP did not contribute to the war against Japan that I hardly know where to begin. ]] 10:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
:::You can begin with non-] sources that verify CCP's revisionism. ] 17:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
:::: God give me strength... How about the US Marines? Check the origins of ] and follow the links from there. ]] 00:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

== De facto ==

I would suggest that it might be appropriate to say that while the non-aggression pact held, the Soviet Union was a ''de facto'' ally of Germany, but there was never the type of overt alliance that there later was with the Western Allies. -- ] | ] 21:28, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

:De facto USSR fought against Japan, Finland, Romania and fascist regime in Spain - all German allies. Also it helped Ethiopia in its battle against Mussolini.--] 21:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:"''De facto'' ally of Germany" seems acceptable to me, as it does not rise questions about the secret protocol. The alliance with the Western Allies was obviously not a secret one. --] <sup>(])</sup> 21:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

::I've tried applying it as a compromise solution now. Let's see if it 'll work out. --] <sup>(])</sup> 10:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

== Italy, Ethiopia ==

I think, we should mention here the Italian invasion in Ethiopia, Albania and so on, shouldn't we?
: Unlike the Chinese-Japanese conflict, which went from 1937-45, the ] was over by December ], guerilla activities excepted. The League of Nations had even dropped sanctions against Italy by that time.]] 12:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
::Agreed--] 12:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

==SU/DE: Allies or not==
Instead of trying to figure logically whether it is correct to call the SU an "ally of Germany", why not simply check what most of the mainstream historical thought says about it. Unlike minor events, little covered in historical works, these events received a huge attention. I suggest that those who want to call the SU a "German Ally" here, to please check how widely this is used in English historical literature. If this is a prevailing notion, we should use it here too. If of all solid researchers only an insignificant fraction use it (or none at all), there is no issue for us here. Does this suggestion sound constructive? --] 06:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
фыфыв

:It would but as the "secret protocol" has been kept secret by the Soviets, who denied its existence, I doubt that there is much of research on this other than in Polish sources. The text of the secret protocol however is available in English now, so the fact of plotting to invade Poland is self-evident now. Do you need any more proof ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 10:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

:Here is a recent BBC story about entitled . Key quote:

:''Did the "Big Three" really meet as allies at Yalta? Or - as the historian Gregor Dallas argues - were the Western leaders too readily seduced by Stalin, who just four years previously had been an ally of Hitler and who only ever acted in the interests of Soviet communism? ''

:BBC is just about as mainstream as you can get. ] 17:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC):

Stalin was always only out for himself. He used everyone else like toilet paper. I heard once that Stalin had his own wife murdered, when she asked him over dinner about all of the people he had killed. Is this true? If so, it provides evidence into the life of a murderous sociopath. The fact is that Stalin made alliances, then broke them, as it seemed advantageous for him to do so, and depending upon whom he (Stalin) was trying to rub out at the time. This was the mark of how Stalin did business; part of the terror was that nobody ever knew whom he was going to kill next. Instead, people just kept on disappearing. Or they would be taken away on mock charges. The Soviets accurately point out that the pathetic Russian people suffered greatly under the tyrant, Stalin. Perhaps the Russian people should rightfully hate Stalin more than anybody else. I wonder whom Stalin killed more of, Russians or Germans? Does anybody know? And whom murdered more Jewish victims: Stalin or Hitler? Are there any figures available for comparison? Perhaps somebody can set up a biographical page on Stalin, for reference. Then we can discuss whether he was a "good guy" or not. Who was worse, Stalin or Hitler? The Rumanian, Wurmbrand, said in his book that it was more of a nightmare to live under Stalin's forces than under Hitler's men. And Wurmbrand should know; he suffered under both. -Ned. (Sept.)

'''To the BBC quote''' by ]: BBC is mainstream all right. However, please note, that the BBC's own commentator doesn't say it. The article just quotes a historian. I would like to see that this is a common opinion of most mainstream historians, not just of this Gregor Dallas. It is important to distinguish when a reputable source just says something as if it is a known fact or it simply gives someone's quote. Recently, I personally removed the following phrase from ] article: ''As the ] about the ], "they talk about Russians the way ]s talk about ]s".'' One may argue that if NYT says so, it is mainstream, while in that case NYT interviewed a Russian political scientist and quoted his answer to this question. I disagreed with calling the quote of a particular politician "a NYT observation" and, therefore, removed that text.

So, if calling the Soviet Union and ally of Nazi Germany before '41 is what mainstream historical thought does, we should keep it. Otherwise, we should not. The "secret appendix" is known for some time and if the term "allies" was the most common phrasing to describe it, I would probably know. And I think this phrasing is rarely used if at all. Maybe it is widely used in Poland, but that's not enough. So, we should state the fact (mention the Pact), but keep the analysis that some Wikipedians prefer out of the article, because only indisputably accepted mainstream analysis may be presented in WP as fact. I will change tha article as per this (actually, Balcer himself did so earlier). Please do not revert without discussion. --] 02:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:The point to be made here is that SU & DE had a de facto pact to (1) invade Poland (2) dismember Poland. The fact that the SU did so 3 weeks after Deutschland did (after France, Great Britain, etc declared war) is of little significance or consequence. What should be revised is the opening statement that the World War II began when Germany invaded Poland, because clearly it was a prearranged agreement with the Soviet Union. Both parties waged aggressive war, both parties committed (as the Nuremberg Tirbunal declared) a Crime Against Peace. ] 02:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

NYT didn't observe that Poles "they talk about Russians the way ]s talk about ]s".''It was a statement of Russian advisor of Putin not NYTs opinion.
As to German Soviet alliance :
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/sesupp1.htm

The undersigned plenipotentiaries, on concluding the German Russian Boundary and Friendship Treaty, have declared their agreement upon the following:

Both parties will tolerate in their territories no Polish agitation which affects the territories of the other party. They will suppress in their territories all beginnings of such agitation and inform each other concerning suitable measures for this purpose.

Moscow, September 28,1939.

For the Government of the German Retch:

J. RIBBENTROP

By authority of the Government of the U.S.S.R.:

W. MOLOTOV
(])

Regarding what NYT observed, this is exactly what I said. We should not confuse BBC and NYT observations with the quotes of some people they reprint for the information. There is also no need to quote the pact and try to derive ourselves whether this qualifies for "alliance" or not. Wikipedians' own analysis is irrelevant. What's relevant, is what established historians say. We saw that Gregor Dallas, a historian, says so. Is this what most other specialist say or this is a minority opinion to which Gregor Dallas subscribes? I think it is the latter. Please do not try to analyze yourselves something of such significance that was surely analyzed by specialists. --] 03:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


:All I wanted to show is that calling USSR an ally of Germany is acceptable in mainstream Western media, which means it is not an outlandish idea only propagated by some fringe Polish nationalists. Presumably the BBC has some reasonably high standards in choosing whom they quote. Here they have chosen to quote a historian who, I believe, has sufficient credentials. (). Most of these books are also available in my university library.

:If I have time, I will take a walk to that library some time and try to take a quick survey of books on the subject, to see how often the term "alliance" is used. I am curious myself. ] 04:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


It is easy to find examples of people that are not Polish, and that call it by the name. I don't think Prof. Gerhard Rempel is Polish, hopefully he is not a wikipedian either. He specializes in modern European history and he explains:
:''The public text of the Nazi-Soviet Pact was simply an agreement of nonaggression and neutrality, referring as a precedent to the German-Soviet neutrality pact of 1926. The real agreement was in a secret protocol which in effect partitioned not only Poland (along the line of the Vistula) but much of Eastern Europe. To the Soviets were allotted Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Bessarabia; to the Nazis, everything to the West of these regions, including Lithuania. Each of the two signatories was to ask the other no questions about the disposition of its own "sphere of interest." This nonaggression pact, coupled with the trade treaty and arrangements for large-scale exchange of raw materials and armaments, amounted to '''an alliance'''.''
The older sources of course were not aware of the fact of the alliance, but hey, we are writing it now. It is 2005. We know now that the secret protocol to the pact existed and we know its text, including the Article II:
:''"In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San. The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments..."''.
A non-aggression pact ? A good one. Now, a question to you: Why was this protocol made secret, while the whole pact was not ? If you answer this question you'll also understand why Soviets called the treaty "a non-aggression pact" and not an alliance, despite of its content and true intentions. --] <sup>(])</sup> 04:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
::It is true in the English speaking countries you have decades of disinformation to cover for Soviet aggression. This should be considered in the wider context of revisionism vis-a vis ] materials, that effectively document Soviet infiltation and subversion into the United States Government, subversion of its ] objectives, and subversion of its media. ] 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why the protocol was kept secret is obvious. That BBC picks who to quote, I believe too. So does NYT. Does anyone want to return the quote of ]?

Neither I deny, nor try to justify the pre-arrangement with regard to the Eastern Europe. We now have quotes from two established historians (I don't care whether they are ''also'' Wikipedians, but I do care that pseudonymous Wikipedians, myself included, are not entitled to make their own significant analysis of events and present it. Only very straightforward conclusions we can make on our own). Two historians consider this as "alliance". I take that. I do beleive that they are both mainstream. I would like to know whether the term "alliance" is currenltly the most established one to call this relationship. I don't think so, because I didn't see it often. I am not a fan of WW2 history but I think I would be aware of this being widely accepted if it was a main term. Checking the library is a good idea of course. Also, a reminder, thath the appendix is declassified for long enough to have its interpretations widely established and publicized. And, finally, what's wrong with "but see also the P of MR" formulation? It states the facts just as well. --] 05:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

:Nothing's wrong with it as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's mentioned next to USSR (this I consider vital for maintaining the historic truth). I don't insist on calling it an alliance if you find the name controversial or abusive. However I believe using "alliance" would be especially proper in the context of this article, which is about WW2 alliances after all. This would best illustrate how dynamic the alliances were, and that SU was not that friendly throughout all the war, as we tend to think now. As to "mainstream media", I think that wikipedia would better reflect historic truth than popular wisdom. --] <sup>(])</sup> 06:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I placed it exactly next to the USSR where it belongs. Just take a look! What matters is not whether myself or others find the term ''abusive'', but that we should not use the term whose acceptance in the field is not wide. I think trying to catch "historic truth" will lead us nowhere. No encyclopedia reflects some absolute truth. It reflects the prevailing knowledge of the field. That's why it is important to check against established and repuatble sources for conclusions and terminology. "Alliance" is sometimes used but it is not a universally agreed term (and I don't just meen FSU historians). --] 21:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't agree with this thinking, but you know this already from our other discussions. And I know that you're a big fan of copying Encyclopedia Britannica ;-) (sorry, I could not resist) --] <sup>(])</sup> 22:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
??? -] 22:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

== Hasan ==

Should we mention the Hasan incident of 1938 between the USSR and Japan?--] 08:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

== Western Ukraine and Belorussia ==

Why not to say the truth - USSR occupied Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia, which were parts of Poland.

We said that Germany occupied Sudetenlind, not Czechoslovakia, why you revert the mention that the USSR occupied the Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia?--] 08:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

:Because it's POV. Soviets did not invade Belorussia or Ukraine in 1939 but Poland. --] <sup>(])</sup> 09:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

::They did not invade Belorussia and Ukraine, they occupied '''Western Ukraine''' and '''Western Belorussia'''. If to say in your manner, then Germany occupied not Sudetenland in 1938, but Czechoslovakia.--] 10:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Sudetenland is only used for descriptive purpose, as this is exactly the part of Czechoslovakia, that Germany occupied in 1938. Soviet Union, however, occupied more of Poland than the modern territory of Belarus and Ukraine, so this is not useful and it's more accurate to say that they invaded Eastern Poland instead. Not to mention that the western borders of Belarus and Ukraine were much more eastwards in 1939 than they are today, after ]. Why do you insist on pretending that Soviets did not invade Poland in 1939 ? BTW: using the name "Belarussia" instead of "Belarus" is considered Russian POV as well. --] <sup>(])</sup> 10:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

::::Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine are separate territories. I dont say they were parts of Ukrainian SSR and Belorussian SSR that time, but parts of Poland.--] 10:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

:::::Well, but how does this relate to my explanations above ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 11:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

:::::The Soviets used these terms to pretend they were engaging in an act of "historical justice" rather than invasion and murder. We should avoid using them if we wish to remain NPOV. Poland's borders were internationally recognized, hence "Eastern Poland."

:::::It is, of course, true that parts of eastern Poland had areas with majorities or significant numbers of Belarusians, Ukrainians, Jews, and Lithuanians. That did not make them automatically "Western Belarus," "Western Ukraine," etc., because these were ethnically mixed territories. (Some Belarusians still believe they should own "Old Belarusian" Vilnius; some Lithuanians believe they were "robbed of the Greater Vilnius Region" in Poland and Belarus — who is right? should they invade?)

:::::Regardless of the population distribution in the countryside, the cities in these areas were predominantly Polish, often with significant Jewish populations. Furthermore, there was no recorded wide-scale movement among the minorities in Eastern Poland to join the Soviet Union. Whatever the mistakes the Polish government made during the 1920s and 1930s, few ethnic Ukrainians or Belarusians were under any illusion that they would be better off in the Soviet republics, ruled direct from Moscow, in which "bourgeois nationalist tendencies," i.e., ethnic self-assertion, were ruthlessly suppressed.

:::::I should also note that the use of the terms "Belorussian" and "Belorussia" should occur only in the historical context of official names such as the "Belorussian SSR." There should be no pretense that this was a political unit under the control of Belarusians themselves. ] 11:04:40, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

::::::Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia are widely accepet terms, not only in the USSR. There is an article on ] in Misplaced Pages.--] 11:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

:::::::In reference to the internationally accepted western parts of Ukraine and Belarus as they NOW exist, yes, they are accepted terms ("Western Belarus" not "Western Belorussia"; see my comment above). In reference to Poland in the 1930's the term is unacceptable, as its use takes sides in a controversial territorial claim and is thus not NPOV. ] 11:28:32, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Both Poland the USSR were Allies in 1942-45, even if it was at arms length. So it's irrelevant to the article which state was in control of western Ukraine and '''Belarus''' (which is now the standard English name). I suggest someone starts an article called ] if it is not already covered adequately elsewhere. I have removed the reference to this matter for the above reasons. ]] 12:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
You are incorrect.Soviets didn't reckognise Poland after April 1943.Soviet units engaged in murder of Allied forces of Polish origin.
As to territories-USSR occupied much more then Western Ukraine and Western Belarus in 1939, so it would be incorrect also.
--] 20:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
:Regarding the Belarus/Belorussia dispute, enclyclopedia and historic books use the terms accepted in the relevant time, not the modern ones. WW2 history books and articles say Rumania and ], while the modern names are Romania and Kharkiv. So, don't start the fight regarding the "Russian POV" with respect to Belorussia. There are other things in the article to address instead. --] 22:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
::Irpen, I think we're already all set here. No need for new flames. My Belarusian friends consider "Belarussia" to be offensive and I see no reason not to respect their feelings. --] <sup>(])</sup> 22:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It is really on the fringe among the Belarusians, and I know many, to consider Belorussia offensive when used in the proper context. If several people really insist, I certainly don't mind to keep "Belarus", but there is no need to accuse those who used it in pushing the "Russian POV". The reasons of the usage are different, see above. --] 22:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

:The historical-viewpoint thing has been done to death elsewhere on Misplaced Pages: Typically, Belarus and Belarusian refer to the state as it now is and the people and their concept of nationhood regardless of timeframe, but it was the "Belorussian SSR" not the "Belarusian SSR," and there are valid reasons to use this term in reference to that entity. Etcetera.

:However, that wasn't the question here. One of the contributors to this article has frequently used the terms "Western Ukraine" and "Western Belorussia" in reference to part of pre-Hitler-Stalin-Pact Poland. Which, however you spell it, takes sides in a territorial claim of the time. The fact that these territories later became (internationally recognized as) part of western Belarus and western Ukraine confuses the issue somewhat; but these terms used in the historical context are POV, hence the neutral "Eastern Poland." ] 22:48:46, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
"
The fact that these territories later became (internationally recognized as) part of western Belarus and western Ukraine confuses the issue somewhat"
Last time I saw Bialystok is still Polish :)
Here is the map that shows Soviet occupation-its clear the areas weren't limited to Belarus and Ukraine
http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Map_of_Poland_%281945%29.png
--] 23:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I know that. Just trying to keep things simple... ] 23:40:11, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

== Kuomintang ==

Should we indicate that Kuomintang collaborated with Nazis during the first stage of the ]?{{Unsigned|Nixer|17:55, 7 September 2005}}
:All relevent discoverable facts & truth should be the standard & incorporated into the article. I am not certain to what extent pre-August 1939 conditions or events have been agreed upon. Now regarding ] recieving German assistance, or ] as an ] ally as you seem to indicate, this is very relevent. However, by use of the phrase "collaborated with Nazis", if the intent is to paint the ] as ] ]s, that particular language would have to be supported by evidence. ] 18:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be taking place on ] and much of the material added to this article (regarding Soviet and German support for China) should be moved to that article. It relates to earlier periods and has no direct relationship to the Allies of WW2.]] 23:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

:I added this to pre-war allies; so the material should be shortened of course, I agree.
:About your position that it is not proper place here for discussion of political parties. Take into account that parties also could be allies - not only states.--] 07:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
==pre-1939==
I am somewhat in agreement with Grant that the pre-1939 belligerencies open the door to background material on the ] (again a ] belligerency) and the Ethopian Invasion by Italy, as well as predating the China Theatre back to 1927. But please note, the China section as written is very good right now, and it hate to see it buried somewhere where nobody would see it. ] 00:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Credit should be given to Grant who authored the China section (Good job). ] 01:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

::Ditto. --] <sup>(])</sup> 07:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Thanks. ]] 04:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:59, 5 December 2024

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.
Article policies
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 
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / South Pacific / British / Canadian / Chinese / European / French / North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / World War II
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
Canadian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Chinese military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
French military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSoviet Union: Military High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconPoland Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChina: History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconCanada High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCzech Republic Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSlovakia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations: United Nations Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconFrance High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMexico High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.

Map needed
Map needed
It is requested that a global map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

"Co-Belligerents"

The whole point of the "Co-belligerents" was that they weren't Allied countries. Why are we listing them in the infobox, in an article about the Allies, without sources saying that they were Allied countries? Notably none of the sources referred to above - not even the Bowman source that tries to give an extensive listing of Allied countries - includes them in their list of Allied countries. This is different to the Finnish wartime claim only to have ever been a "co-belligerent" of the Axis, since most sources just lump Finland in with the Axis anyway and describe it as having been an Axis state. Few sources (very possibly no sources), when listing the Allies, includes Finland/Italy/Romania/Bulgaria as unambiguously members of the Allies. FOARP (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The infobox does distinguish co-belligerents from Allies, in that it does not use the word "Allies" to refer to the co-belligerents, and makes clear they formerly fought on the Axis side. It does seem useful for the sake of completeness to have a list of all the countries that fought against Germany and Japan, whether or not they formally signed the Declaration of United Nations, etc. World War II does not do that; it defers that list to the two articles on the Allies and Axis sides. Would it help to make the label even more specific like adding "non-Allies" in some way? -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I think there are two issues: 1) How do we classify the Allies, the anti-Axis belligerents and the signatories to the Declaration of the United Nations in the article? 2) How much information about them do we put in the Info Box?
I don't think complex and contested information belongs in the Info Box Misplaced Pages:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The only (almost) universally accepted information about the Allies is that there was a Big Three: Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States. Therefore this is the only information that should be in the info box. However, the Info Box should also have a category named "Other Anti-Axis nations" (or similar wording) which links to a Table in the article which lists all these nations and the date(s) they declared war on any of the Axis powers or signed the declaration of the UN. The Table could also note whether they actually took arms against an Axis power. The Table should be sortable either alphabetically or by the date they declared war (or signed a relevant document).
As for how these nations are grouped and discussed in the article, a possible structure is mostly geographic which avoids contested issues about their status as belligerents/non-belligerents/occupied powers etc. Each nation can then be discussed separately and the complexities about their status dealt with.
Proposed new structure:
1) History
a) Origins
b) Formation of "The Grand Alliance"
c) United Nations
2) Anti-Axis nations
a) The Big Three
b) Commonwealth of Nations (incuding India and British colonies). This could be a sub-section of the Big Three.
c) Other European nations
d), e), f) etc. Other American nations, Asia nations, African nations etc.
See also the discussion above about the Info Box. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
This seems like it would be an improvement as the existing structure is a bit confusing. Certainly if the list of co-belligerents is taken out of the infobox, it should be included in the table of which nations declared war vs. actually fought, as proposed. -- Beland (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm in favour of taking the "co-belligerents" out of the infobox, because no source unambiguously identifies these as Allied nations, and in an infobox for an article about Allied nations, you would expect the countries in it to be Allied nations.
For the others I think the issue is 50 countries is too long for an infobox. It's like listing all the cast of a film, or all of the players in a football team.
"Allied combatant" countries gives a smaller list, but no reliable source I've seen lists all the "combatant" countries. It is also not a clear-cut distinction. Consider the following examples:
  • Cuban warships sank a U-boat so was Cuba a "combatant" based on that single incident?
  • A Colombian warship attacked a U-boat so was Colombia a "combatant"?
  • Venezuela and Panama had merchant ships sunk during the war - for example by U-502. Were they "combatants"?
  • Vessels of many countries travelled in Allied convoys and were sunk - were these "combatants"? Even the neutrals like the Republic of Ireland?
  • Do colonial troops make a colony a "combatant"?
This kind of issue is inevitable when we try to decide categories ourselves rather than just going with what reliable sources say. FOARP (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I've moved most of the list out of the infobox and into the "Summary table" section. The prose of the article explains the circumstances of some countries in detail already, but for the remainder, there is now space to explain the fuzzy boundaries.
It's certainly interesting to know the extent to which each country was militarily involved in the war. That could be done in summary by adding a fourth column to the table indicating each country's contribution. The Big Three might be something like "Land invasion, naval bombardment, air raids, espionage" whereas others might be "Munitions, U-boat attack" with a link to the related article. This would "show not tell" and avoid making a classification as to what counts for "combatant" status. It also means the "co-belligerents" could be included, just marking them as not signing the various Allied documents. -- Beland (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Foreign languages in Info Box

Hello all

I don't see any reason why the French, Russian and Chinese words for Allies are listed at the head of the info box. I suggest we remove them for the following reasons:

1) This is the English language Misplaced Pages so we should only list the English name of the article.

2) The information isn't sourced and as far as I can see isn't mentioned in the article.

3) If we are going to list the foreign language terms for the Allies why only the French, Chinese and Russian terms? France and China aren't even listed in the info box as part of the Big Three.

4) In any event, the links to "French", "Chinese" and "Russian" should be removed. These are common English words and don't need to be linked MOS:OVERLINK

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Whizz40 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hungary an Allied power?

An editor has recently added Hungary as one of the Allied powers in the Soviet zone of influence. As far as I know, the there was no recognised government of Hungary which fought on the Allied side. A provisional government was appointed by the Soviet Union in the areas it occupied and some Hungarian volunteer units fought with the Soviet army, but more fought against both the Soviets and the Arrow Cross. This article is getting to the absurd point that all the main Axis powers are also portrayed as allied powers if one of the Allies appointed a puppet government on any part of its territory. One problem is that one of the cited sources is in Russian with no translation. Under policy, the relevant sections of foreign language sources should be translated into English so that English speaking editors can assess their reliability as sources. WP:NONENG.

@Opostylov Could you provide a translation of this Russian source? As far as I know, the provisional Hungarian government was established by the occupying Soviet power and didn't hold national elections until after the war.

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin the provisional government was established in december 1944, and in january 1945 it signed an armistice with the ussr and the western allies (what means that it was at least de facto recognized) - you can read its text here. this provisional government was formed by the provisional parliament formed by the elections which were held in december 1944, so it was not just appointed, it was formed on a relatively democratic basis, its just that the elections were idirect and the party composition of the govt was agreed with moscow. from its behalf, the government of hungary promised to form 8 divisions allied with the ussr and began the mobilization of volunteers to the new army which was being created by the nkvd in pow camps; some companies of these volunteers and larger units and military engineering brigades were sent at the front, the largest unit was the Volunteer Regiment of Buda. hungarian government managed to form only 2 divisions of the promised 8, and they were sent at the front when germany signed the capitulation.

so it didnt have an actual big army, but it was recognized, and these small units were loyal to this government; since a czech battalion of the red army is enough to include czechoslovakia into the list of participants of the war in 1943, and since a de jure croatian regiment is enough to include croatia as a full participant on the eastern front, i dont see why units loyal to this (recognized) government are not enough to include hungaryOpostylov (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

wdym by "but more fought against both the Soviets and the Arrow Cross"? Opostylov (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
also one of the sources i cited, "the hungarian royal army in ww2", is in english; i cant fully read it cuz google books doesnt allow me to but it seems that it describes more or less the same stuff as the book in russian Opostylov (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that there is a problem with the inclusion of other states as "Allies". I think this whole section on "Client and Occupied states" doesn't belong in this article because it is discussing things other than the Allies of WWII. I am aware that a provisional government was set up by the Soviet Union in Soviet occupied areas following partial "elections" in those areas. I am also aware that this provisional government signed an armistice with the Soviet Union. However, I am not aware that it signed the Declaration of the United Nations before the end of the war or fielded an army of its own. My understanding is that the Hungarian forces in the occupied areas were volunteers, POWS and conscripts and they served in the Soviet Army. My understanding is also that the Horthy government also signed an armistice with the Soviet Union in October 1944 and that many in the regular Hungarian army were still loyal to the former government and continued to fight into April 1945. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I've read the English source. I will look up the other sources you mentioned. In the meantime how about we say, "Following elections in the Soviet occupied areas of Hungary, a Provisional National Government of Hungary was established in the Soviet-occupied city of Debrecen on December 22, 1944. The provisional government signed an armistice with the Soviet Union in January 1945 and began forming small military units to assist the USSR, the largest of which was the Volunteer Regiment of Buda. Following the Soviet occupation of Budapest in February 1945 and the collapse of the Iron Cross government in March, the Provisional National Government became the temporary semi-independent government of Hungary under the supervision of the Soviet Union. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
"subordinate to the Soviet-dominated Allied Control Commision" would be correct i think
their relations are described in laszlo kontler's "A History of Hungary: Millennium in Central Europe" but he doesnt mention the 1944 elections Opostylov (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
or like "subordinate to Allied Control Commision" set up/maintained/idk by the USSR Opostylov (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: