Misplaced Pages

Why this for example??!

 Byelorussian SSR  Russian SFSR  Ukrainian SSR other Socialist Soviet Republics

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

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

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as an allie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United Nations flag image

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

Sovereign

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

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

India and the Philippines

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

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

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

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

Non-consensual deletions/changes

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

List or article

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

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

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  23:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Nazi-Soviet parade photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finland

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuva removed

This article is about the independent states that comprised the Allies....

Tannu Tuva, was under Soviet control and WAS NOT an independent country. Since this list is the list of INDEPENDENT countries that joined Allies, Tuva does not belong here. Please refer to this] for more information. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Tuva looks odd taking into account that Newfoundland is still in the article. It is not clear from your source how independent Tuva and Mongolia were, so your conclusion doesn't follow directly from what the source says. In addition, the source provided by you is not an academic source. It is quite unclear where the information presented there was taken from (probably, from Misplaced Pages itself). In addition, the site's major subject is aviation, not history. You should use more serious sources to support your claims. Anyway, I posted a question there , let's wait for an answers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, but if you decide to reinsert Tuva and Mongolia into the list, please provide a valid source that these countries were fully independent and recognized internationally, please. I expect you not to insert these countries WITHOUT a valid source. Thanks Paul.--Jacurek (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article tells nothing about international recognition of the Allied states, just about their independence. You seem to add this new criterion by yourself. Obviously, this criterion is ridiculous during WWII: the world was divided onto two parts each of which didn't recognize many members of the opposing bloc. In that situation, the term "international recognition" becomes vague and useless. You simply try to project a present days' situation on the past.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. I believe, formal independence is sufficient to consider a state independent during WWII. If some country is not a colony, it should be considered independent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If a puppet set up by invading foreign forces declared independence(like Manchukuo, WW2 Croatia, Slovakia etc), then it was to become an independent country? This was ridiculous. Vulturedroid (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PPS. Re: "I expect you not to insert these countries WITHOUT a valid source." You provided no reliable source supporting your deletion, moreover, you deleted Tuva after the source has been added stating that "Напомним, что с 1921 по 1944 годы Тува была независимой, потом добровольно вошла в состав СССР." ("Let's remind you that from 1921 to 1944 Tuva was independent, and voluntarily entered the USSR in 1944"). In other words, you deleted a sources material without providing proper sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, let's wait for a third opinion.--Jacurek (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We need not a new opinion, but new arguments. If no reasonable arguments will be provided (by you or by someone else), I'll restore the material removed by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: " if you decide to reinsert Tuva and Mongolia into the list, please provide a valid source" You removed Tuva from a stable version, therefore the burden of evidence rests with you. You seem not to sustain this burden so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not do that without providing reliable sources that these states were indeed fully independent. I already provided a source (two) that they were not independent and not even recognized as states by anybody but the USSR. If you deside to do that please back it up with the source. Thanks Paul.--Jacurek (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No. First, "not even recognized" is not an argument. International recognition is the next step towards full independence: a country initially got independence, and only after that they become recognized (or not recognized) by other states. For Tuva and Mongolia, small, isolated and remote countries, there were no reason to seek contacts with major world powers, the only country they contacted with was the USSR. That doesn't mean automatically that they were not independent. Second, your sources do not confirm that Tuva was not independent (leaving aside a question of reliability of your source, let me remind you that formal independence does not exclude some degree of external control), whereas the source you deleted clearly states that it was. In addition, your interpretation of the article's criteria is not fully correct: as I already pointed out, for WWII time it would be sufficient that the country is not a colony. Neither Tuva nor Mongolia were colonies by that time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, we really need somebody else to step in. We are totally on the opposite ends of the stick. I don't agree with you even a bit but I don't want to argue anymore. Could you arrange neutral third opinion on this issues? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that the League of Nations existed until 1946, an independent state for the purposes of this section should be one that is listed in League of Nations members. --Martintg (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No Free France, no Tuvia, no Mongolia there....--Jacurek (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

...as well as the USSR. You probably know that the USSR was believed to be excluded from the Leagu after it started Winter war. Although some sources ague that that decision was illegal, the USSR is believed not to be the member of the League by 1941. Do you propose to exclude it from the article based on that ground?

Generally speaking, membership in the League of Nations was not a necessary attribute of independence. Your argument doesn't work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it works, USSR joined in 1934 as an independent country. Tuvia and Mongolia would not have this opportunity because they were not recognized by anybody, they were not independent and would not be admitted. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The USSR as a country emerged in 1922, when no one recognised it yet, it was an independent country before it become a member of the League, and it remained an independent country after it was excluded. Therefore, it was possible for a country to be independent and not to be the member of the League of Nation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But this does not change the fact that Tuvia fro example was NEVER independent.--Jacurek (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide a support for that statement. At least one source (the source you deleted) clearly states that it was.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well my two sources]] clearly state that it was not.--Jacurek (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your first source clearly tells that the period from 1921 to 1944 was a perion of independence of Tuva, whereas the second source is not reliable enough.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Two sources that are contradicting themselves...Who recognized that country other that USSR? Why did they join the war? I need to find answer to this questions before listing it as and FULLY independent country and an Allie.--Jacurek (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a refusal to get a point: I already wrote that recognition is not a necessary trait of independence. The decision to join a war might be dictated by different reasons. For instance, for Mongolia it was clear: Axis victory meant a conquest of Mongolia by Japan (Nomongan incident). For Tuva the reason was not so clear, however, I have no intentions to analyze it here. Again, we have three sources, one source, removed by you, tells that Tuva was independent, the second source (yours) tells that 1921-44 was a period of Tuva's independence, and the third source seems to be not reliable. Tuva (and Momgolia) must be restored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect, this argument: country X was independent therefore it was an ally, seems like synthesis. Is there a source that lists Mongolia and Tuva as official members of the allies? --Martintg (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources contradict themselves but there is nothing I could find that CLEARLY says that Mongolia and Tuvia were fully independent and official Allies.--Jacurek (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if the sources are contradictory then we should be cautious here and be careful that we don't synthesize that they were official allies. My preference would be to omit them until a definitive source is found. --Martintg (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) Re: "Is there a source that lists Mongolia and Tuva as official members of the allies?" Did the organisation named "The Allies" formally exist? I doubt. What really existed were the primary allies (Poland, tyhe UK and France), and the countries that became the allies of one of those Allies (either directly, or by signing an alliance with some new ally, or simply by declaring the war on the Axis). For instance, the USSR became the British ally (not Polish), however, I doubt is the reason for not list it among the Allies. Similarly, Tuva declared a war on Germany and became the Soviet ally. The source states that clearly, and that is a quite sufficient to consider it the Ally.
Re: "I think if the sources are contradictory then we should be cautious" Two of three sources state that Tuva was independent. A third source is not reliable . What contradiction do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Re: "is nothing I could find that CLEARLY says that Mongolia and Tuvia were fully independent and official Allies" I don't think it is reasonable to expect a source to exist that contained both this statements together. For instance you will never find any source claiming that Britain fully independent and official Ally...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The source (provided by you) states:

"Actually, Stalin's empire also swallowed a fourth state during World War II-Tuva, a country the size of Greece (170 000 sq. km.)-but what happened to that country on 11 October 1944 passed unnoticed by the world. Even Soviet citizens were initially denied knowledge of a widening of their country's borders. The first news of the event in Russian was published not in Moscow but in the 1 November 1944 issue of Tuvinskaya Pravda, published in Kyzyl.1 The events in Tuva in the autumn of 1944 are shrouded in silence even now-a silence which it is difficult to explain. It is sad that even Western accounts of World War II fail to mention either Tuva as a participant in the war (soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44), or the expansion of the Soviet Union at the expense of Tuva's territory.
Forgetting Tuva while remembering the disappearance of the Baltic states seems even more perplexing when we recall that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had been part of the Russian empire since the 18th century, while Tuva had been in the Russian sphere of influence only from 1912 and formed part of it from 1914 to 1921.

"The period of independence of Tuva, a country squeezed in between Russia and Mongolia, was short (1921-44), and its contacts were limited to its nearest neighbours. Nevertheless, there are sufficient grounds to speak not only of an independent internal and foreign policy, but also to argue that Tuva set an example to the world by abandoning Stalinist socialism in 1932/33 and holding its own for a whole six years."

"In November 1911 Mongolia, which had also been subjected to China, declared itself independent and elected the local spiritual leader or bogdo-gegen as head of state. This provided an impetus also to the neighbouring Tuva. On 15 February 1912 the local elite declared Tuva an independent country, expressed their desire to install the supreme spiritual leader as head of state, and addressed a plea for protection and defence to Russia."

"In fact, Tuva only became independent three years later. Both in Mongolia and Tuva the course of events was influenced by the Red Army. After the crushing of the bands led by the Baltic baron von Ungern Sternberg, the power of the bogdo-gegen was restored in Mongolia and a foundation was laid for that country's independence (not recognised by China until 1946). The decision about the independence of Tuva was made at the meeting on 26 June 1921 in Chadan, but not all khoshuns (districts) were represented there."

"..the Supreme Soviet decided, on 28 February 1992, to publish all the secret documents linked with 'the voluntary entry' of Tuva into the USSR.65 The most astonishing thing which was revealed was that juridically Tuva is still now at war with Hitler's Germany!"

(Tuva. A State Reawakens Author(s): Toomas Alatalu Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5 (1992), pp. 881-895)

I believe, this article states clearly that both Mongolia and Tuva became independent states in 1920s. I'll remove the quotes soon to avoid copyright violation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. If someone will not provide an equally reliable source (a scientific journal article or a book published by some university publishing house, or something equal) I'll restore Tuva and Mongolia in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you need to remove the quotes, as they are quite small and this would qualify as fair use, I believe. All that we can glean from the quote is that soldiers from Tuva fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44. There is no information that they fought in the uniform of the Tuvan Army, they may well have been volunteers in the Red Army (or even conscripts, which would put into question Tuvan independance). Surely there must be some published work that has a comprehensive list of all the allies, otherwise this article is in danger of becoming the result of original research. In Eastern destiny: Russia in Asia and the North Pacific By G. Patrick March on page 200:

"Tuva's sovereign status would only be recognized by Soviet Russian and Mongolia, and the new "state" was more completely dominated by Moscow than it had been by Saint Petersburg while in its earlier role as an official protectorate"

Note that Patrick March placed the term state in quotes. --Martintg (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The uniform does not matter, because some "Allies" (e.g. some Latin American countries) participate in virtually no hostilities at all. The fact that Tuva declared a war on Germany a couple of days after Barbarossa started is clear from another source. From the fact that Tuva formally is still at war with Germany we can conclude that it was an official declaration of war. March's comparison between Soviet and Imperial influence hardly proves anything taking into account that before 1914 Russian influence in Tuva was minimal.
By contrast, Alatalu draws a direct parallelism between Baltic states and Tuva. Taking into account that recognition of sovereign status by more that one state is not an obligatory criterion for a state to be included into the article, I see no reason for not restoring Tuva.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me a discussion about a half-empty/half-full glass. I propose a compromise: to include Tuva and Mongolia and to add that these two country were informally dominated by the USSR (under informally I mean that they were neither colonies/dominions nor protectorates of the latter).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If I get no reasonable counter proposal, I'll implement the proposed edit in the article tomorrow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark R. Beissinger in Nationalist mobilization and the collapse of the Soviet State on page 229 states:

"Throughout its period of independence Tuvan sovereignty had been a questionable affair, since by the late 1920s what had originally been established as a buffer state between China and Soviet Russia had been transformed into a Soviet puppet state along the Mongolian model."

I agree to your proposal is it was added that these two counties were Soviet puppet states. --Martintg (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not more puppet that CzSSR was. Some sources available for me directly tell about Soviet interference into Tuva's domestic affairs, however, they describe that as occasional actions against the independent state. Other sources state that the most literare part of Tuvinian population was pro-Soviet, and I believe they have a ground for such claim, because even Stalinist USSR was more progressive society that traditional society in Tuva. (The quotes are available upon request) Therefore, I believe, "under Soviet influence" is more correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections anymore. --Jacurek (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with adding Tannu Tuva and Mongolia because I don't find any excuse to exclude them other than racism (the probable reason why widely recognized allied states, namely India and the Philippines, were previously excluded). I would also like to add colonies that had over a million casualties like the Dutch East Indies and French Indochina, both of which clearly carried a huge burden during the war. The inclusion, meanwhile is based on its inclusion in the Statute of Westminster, which gives it pseudo-independent status.--23prootie (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

However French Indochina was administered by Vichy France, which was aligned with Nazi Germany. --Martintg (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. Assume good faith; no need to brandish the card. Perhaps they were "excluded" (ie, not included) because someone forgot to put them in, or didn't know they were Allies, or a whole host of other reasons. Presuming "racism" at every turn is hardly conducive to elevated discourse. - Biruitorul 16:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents about the problem of Tuva and Mongolia.
In my opinion, the problem is badly put. Were Mongolia and TT independent States? In general literature the answer is "yes", they were independent at least as Polonia, East Germany, Hungary & Co during the Cold War. But the problem is that this article must not speak about independent States (referring to a legal status), it must speak about recognized States, referring to a political status. How can we say that Mongolia and TT joined the UN during the war? How can they be allied with nations (UK and US) that didn't have relationships with them? Where did their armies fight? And, if there were no German ambassador in Ulan Bator, how could Mongolia declare war on Germany? With a postcard?? Yes, the Mongolian governament could unilaterally declare itself in a state of war, but what difference could exist in this situation, with the possibility that the Association of Free Farmers might declare itself in war against Germany?--79.24.128.87 (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Free France was not a country

This article is about the independent states that comprised the Allies....

Free France was not a country and should be removed. I requested a source to proove that Free France was a country. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You mix the term "country" with the term "state". The article tells about states, not countries. Did Polish state ceased to exist after 1939?
With regards to France, after 1940 defeat it was succeded by Vichy regime. However, not all French officials and not all parts of French colonial empire decided to recognize Vichy. Some of them decided to fight against the Axis, and they did that neither as a part of some country's colonial empire nor protectorate.
I agree that the case is a little bit complicated, therefore I posted a message on the Free French talk page , let's see if someone provided additional arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Free France was neither a state or a country.--Jacurek (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is not listed in League of Nations members, it should be removed. --Martintg (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The League was virtually defunct by that moment (1940), so this criterion doesn't work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. I checked the League of Nations members, it does mention Free France ("Of the 42 founding members, 23 (or 24, counting Free France)"), however, for the reason explained above, it adds no additional weight to neither my nor Jacurek's point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul sorry I can't see Free France on the list of countries. Could you link it? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, you cannot see it because after 1940 the League was virtually defunct, and no update of the member's list were being made. However, the third article's para starts with the words I quoted. (Again, although formally it supports my point I don't want to use it as an argument).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

...but you said above :I checked the League of Nations members, it does mention Free France . Can you provide the link to what you saw. Thanks Paul.--Jacurek (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant, I checked the League of Nations members article. The article implies (see the quote) that Free French may be considered a successor of France. Again, I don't think this discussion to add much to the question we argue about. Membership in the League meant nothing during that time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh .o.k. but I think that membership in the Ligue of Nations is a criterium that one could go by to check the independence--Jacurek (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Membership is a criterion, but not membership means nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course Free France should be counted as an 'Ally'; it had its own government (initially located in Brazzaville in Africa) and fielded substantial forces which ultimately reported to the Free French political leadership. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case "This article is about the independent states that comprised the Allies" should be removed from the lead of the article and Polish Government in Exile added, don't you think so?--Jacurek (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

but I still think this is wrong...we would have to add all the Governments in Exile now, eg. Danes etc, etc...it is going to be a mess now... --Jacurek (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't be too formal: of course, only three countries continued to fight after they were conquered by Nazi: Poland, France and Yugoslavia. And this fact should be reflected in the article. If these countries do not fit the article's criteria, then the criteria should be changed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That "independent states" thing is nonsense and should be changed to "formally independent states". And even when I don't understand what British Raj is doing there.--Staberinde (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
only three countries continued to fight after they were conquered by Nazi: Poland, France and Yugoslavia.
Um, didn't most countries maintain governments in exile/colonies which stayed members of allies? France is only one who I remember actually making peace.--Staberinde (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is too formal approach. The historical fact is that Yugoslavia, France and Poland made considerable military contribution even when their territories were conquered by the Nazis. Not to reflect this fact is a direct insult of these nations, and, it would be simply incorrect. If some formal approach doesn't work then the criteria were chosen incorrectly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Poland joined on 1st september 1939, it never made peace with Germany so its joining remained in effect. It wouldn't make sense to include same country twice. French situation is different though as France actually surrendered. I don't know what exactly happened in Yugoslavia. Anyway my main complaint with current "independent states" thing was actually the fact, that countries like Iran and Iraq, which were occupied with military invasion, and British Raj, which was essentially colony, don't really count as "independent" in proper meaning of word.--Staberinde (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "France actually surrendered" Only a part of France supported this decision. Another part didn't obey that and continued to resist. Both Vichy and Free French may be considered successors of Third Republic with equal ground. With regards to colonies or occupied countries, I agree, especially regarding Iraq, where a pro-Nazi coup was suppressed by external military force.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I totally admit that details about legal continuation of the Third Republic isn't really my strong point so I can't argue on that topic. Just my point was that if country continued to fight after German occupation in exile, then there is no point to mark it joining allies again because it never left in first place.--Staberinde (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

By contrast to Poland, the French case is somewhat controversial. France under Petain did surrender and, therefore, ceased to be an Ally. However, since not all French supported that decision, and since some leaders and some colonies decided to fight, it should be stated explicitly that Free French, that may be considered successors of Third Republic, became a new Ally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

France is already listed as an ally in the section Allies_of_World_War_II#After_the_German_invasion_of_Poland. The "Free French" is not a state, but a body of individuals that elected to fight on in various military units. Note that the full name is Free French Forces. It would be like claiming Russia joined the Axis because many Russians joined Russian National Liberation Army. --Martintg (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Martintg. Should we vote on ?--Jacurek (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the literature sees "Free French" as a movement rather than a sovereign state. --Martintg (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(od)Re: vote. WP is not a democracy.
Re: As I (and Nick-D) already wrote, Free French was grouped around the African colonies, they fielded considerable armed forces (including the Richelieu battleship) and controlled considerable territory. It is ridiculous to include Honduras and not to mention Free French. Again, if some criteria do not allow to list Free French among the Allies, these criteria must be changed. Alternatively, the footnote can be added that will explain that although Free French met not all criteria of state, they could be considered a Third Republic's successor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No. There is no country article titled "Free France", it is just a redirect to Free French Forces. France is already listed as an ally in the article, in the section Allies_of_World_War_II#After_the_German_invasion_of_Poland, it is best make a footnote against "France" in that section mentioning the capitulation of France, the succession of Vichy France in 1940 and the rise of the Free French Movement that wanted to continue the fight and the succession of De Gaulle's Provisional Government of the French Republic in 1944. --Martintg (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Free France was not a country per se, but it still did contribute to Allied war effort. Moreover, the Provisional Government of the French Republic (successor to Free France) was recognized by the Allies as the legitimate government of France in 1944. Free France was not a country, but then neither was the Czechoslovak government-in-exile, as Czechoslovakia had de facto ceased to exist after being split by Germany. I agree with the statement above : if the criteria pose a problem, change the criteria. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Free France shouldn't only be a redirect to Free French Forces on this wiki. The Free French Forces were Free France's armed forces, but Free France was actually an umbrella term for : De Gaulle's government in exile (formally organized as such in 1941, as the French National committee, "Comité national français"; from 1940 to 1941 it was the "Comité pour la défense de l'empire", Committee for the Empire's defense), the Free French Forces, and the Free French Committees of expatriate frenchmen who supported it all over the world. While it was not recognized by the Allies as France's government in exile, it was definitely a co-belligerent. After Operation Torch, the United States favored general Henri Giraud, who set up in Algiers the Civil and military command (unrelated to Free France). De Gaulle and Giraud's respective organizations merged in 1943 and became the National Liberation French Committee ("Comité français de la libération nationale"). It actually stopped using the term "Free France", since it was a merging of two different organizations. The Free French Forces merged with the French North African Army and became the "French liberation Army" (Armée française de la libération), which did not use the cross of lorraine as its official symbol (but former Free French Forces kept using it). Actually there is some debate whether Free France still existed after 1943, but De Gaulle eliminated Giraud after a few months, so the new Committee was actually a continuation of Free France. In mid-1943 "Free France" controlled all french colonies (with the exception of French Indochina and overseas territories, which makes a lot of people. The National Liberation French Committee became the Provisional government of the French Republic just before D-Day. During the liberation, it decreed that the Republic had never legally ceased to exist, and that the Vichy regime was null and void : this decree is still in vigor today (text in french here). The Provisional government was officially recognized by the Allies afterwards, but the Free French organization (under whatever official names it used) had been a co-belligerent (i.e. de facto ally) long before that. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Most importantly, I forgot to add that the same decision also nullified Pétain's demand of surrender of the 17 june 1940. So, legally, France is considered as having never legally surrendered at all. As the Allies recognized the government, that means they also recognized its laws, which means that from an allied point of view (at least since 1944), France has not surrendered in 1940. This is of course utterly debatable, but it is still legally in vigor in France. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Churchill recognized De Gaulle's French Government in exile as legitimate in August 1940, while the US, which only joined more than one year later, when Hitler declared war against them, preferred Vichy and sent an ambassador there.82.120.232.114 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Independence or not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India

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

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

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

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

Expert attention urgently required

Independent countries ONLY please.

As you all noticed by now, once people started inserting Free France organization, Alaska, governments in Exile etc. into the Alliance of INDEPENDENT countries, everything became so open to individual interpretation that now this important article, viewed by thousands of people every day, lost its quality and it is also confusing. I appeal to all editors and especially to the editors who refuse to take even one step back to reach compromise (yes, you Paul give me one example of "one step back" you took) to really start taking this issue seriously. We desperately need an agreement or an intervention of an expert before somebody inserts the Salvation Army to the list. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, governments in exile, the US's states or colonies should not be included as a rule. However, in some (limited) number of cases, concretely, when it is not clear if some Ally was a fully independent state (like Tuva), or when it it lacks some traits of state (Free French), exception should be made if omission of such an ally goes against common sense. I always presented my rationale for Tuva or Free French. Please argue concretely, without references to common criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Paul, but if we go head and make an exception to Free France for example, then what will stop other editors if they were to include Polish Secret State and start arguing that since Free France is there Polish Secret State, Yugoslav partisans and Armia Krajowa should be also included?? We have exactly this situation right now. Your idea is asking for trouble. It should be eather ONLY independent states and NO EXEPTIONS or "open the door and let everyone else in".--Jacurek (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a Slippery slope fallacy. After the Yugoslav government fell, the Yugoslav Partisans, which grew to a force of over 800,000 by the war's end, were definitely a significant combatant of World War II and contributed importantly to the Allied cause. In terms of the other territories or dominions, such as Alaska, Hawaii, and P.R., yes, these could be considered under the "U.S. umbrella." Though I believe it is important to remind people that, at the time, these were separate territories beyond the United States itself. Much as Newfoundland was not politically part of Canada at the time, and thus gets its own flag on the list. --Petercorless (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We already have the article Participants in World War II, I don't see Alaska or Hawaii listed there. To my mind an alliance needs some kind of formality in place like a treaty or something, and this article should be all those countries that had a formal alliance relationship, otherwise this article would be just a pointless content fork of Participants in World War II. The dispute seems to revolve around differing interpretations of what "Allies" mean for the purpose of this article. Once we sort that out, the rest should follow. --Martintg (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you correctly described a reason of the dispute. However, I am not sure it will be possible to give a single and simple interpretation of the term the "Ally". Primary Allies were Poland, Britain and France, and the only formal document they signed were French and British guaranties for Poland. However, de facto the Alliance was formed not as a result of signing of these guarentees, but as a result of the Anglo-Franco war declaration on Germany on Sept 3, 1939. Similarly, other countries became the Allies as a result of different and separate events, and any attempt to derive the membership criteria based on certain single fact or document will not work.
For instance, if we decided to consider the Ally only those countries that signed Atlantic charter, that would imply that no Allies existed before that.
The least controversial definition of the Ally would be "an independent state that declared a war on at least one of the Axis' member before Sept 1, 1945, and that fought in alliance with some Ally"
In connection to that, the term "independent" poses the most serious problem. You and -Jacurek interpret it as "fully independent and internationally recognized state", that is redundantly strict, in my opinion. "Fully independent" in your interpretation means that there is no sources that question that fact. However, formally speaking, even now some independent states (Canada, Australia) are not fully independent, because formally their head is a British Queen. I believe, I would be sufficient for the Ally to be considered independent if some reliable sources exist that tell about them as about independent states during WWII.
The term "internationally recognized" seems redundant. During WWII, when the international community was split onto two hostile camps it is hard to speak about international recognition. In addition, the criterion is vague. How many states have to recognize a certain state to consider it independent? One, two, three or many (and what does many mean)? Moreover, let me remind you that that country's declaration of independence and its international recognition are separated in time: a country may declare independence e.g. in 1932, and to establish diplomatic relations in 1937. Does it mean that such a country was not independent until 1937? I believe no. International recognition in 1937 just additionally post factum confirms independence declared in 1932.
Again, if some country declared a war on Axis and some sources exist that tell about it as about independent state, then it should be in the list.
With regards to Yugoslavian underground forces and Free France, situation is not so obvious. However, we have to agree that these movements served as a base for creation of new governments of liberated Yugoslavia and France, accordingly. That means they were internationally recognized post factum. They controlled a part of their countries' territory during WWII and fielded considerable armed forces. Although it would be incorrect to speak about them as fully independent states, to omit them would be equally incorrect. I believe that is a separate case that shuld be considered separately and that will not cause an avalanche of new "Allied colonies, protectorates etc" to be included into the article (per Slippery slope fallacy).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Purely to correct you as a matter of fact, the head of state of Canada is NOT the 'British Queen'. The head of State of Canada is the Queen of Canada, who admittedly happens to be the same person. However you will find that Canada, like Australia, has been fully independent for some time now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I count as an expert here, but I've done some research and editing on various nations in WWII, and I'm not part of any of the current disputes. It seems to me that there are two issues here: subordinate territories, and governments in exile.

I propose that countries that are not independent are not included. The key test here is whether the country in question got to declare war of its own accord, or did they come in because the parent declared war. This would exclude Alaska, for example, but include Canada. Most of these are uncontroversial; probably the ones most likely to be criticised for omission is India, but hard cases make bad law, and for better or worse India did not have the level of independence of Canada or Australia. The trouble with including non-independent countries is that there are just so many of them, once you've included all the British, French and Dutch colonies.

For the second case I would propose including governments that claimed to represent independent states. However I would temper this by treating governments in exile as part of the parent country if the parent country fought in the war before the exile. There is therefore no need to list Free French separately from French - we just say that the French were allies. de Gaulle would always claim he was the legitimate government of France anyway. We can add footnotes if we think it will help. Dutch, Polish etc all get treated like this. The only hard case here I see is Czechoslovakia; I would list it separately.

A very minor nit:

'In terms of the other territories or dominions, such as Alaska, Hawaii, and P.R., yes, these could be considered under the "U.S. umbrella." Though I believe it is important to remind people that, at the time, these were separate territories beyond the United States itself.'

Actually, Alaska was an incorporated territory of the United States during this era, meaning that it was an integral part of the United States, and persons born in Alaska were legally natural born citizens of the United States. Which I suppose makes the idea of including Alaska as one of the Allies even more ludicrous. Yaush (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you %100.--Jacurek (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Without any doubts, subordinate territories should not be included. However, the question is which territories are subordinate. Let's take Tuva as an example because we already spoke about it a lot. Some sources state it was dominated by the USSR and, therefore, was only formally independent. Other sources describe it as a territory that was not influenced neither by Russia nor by China (because Russian and Chinese versions of the Sino-Russian peace treaty two different mountain ranges were used as a border, and Tuva was in between these ranges), but that the USSR interference into Tuvinian domestic affair was significant. However, these sources draw parallelism between Soviet interference in Tuva and Czechoslovakia (an independent state). As a result, we have a half-full/half-empty glass question: should we consider these type states independent (because some sources state that) or subordinated (because some sources question that fact)?

With regards to France, the question is also a little bit more complex. By contrast to Poland (that never surrendered), France did surrender, and, therefore, ceased to be the Ally. We need to reflect a fact that, whereas a part of France (southern part of former Third Republic, part of its colonial empire and part of its fleet) became a pro-Axis state, another part (some colonies, some military forces, etc) continued to resist. How do you propose to reflect both these facts?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The case of the Free French forces can be explained in a footnote to France, there is no restriction on the length of the footnote. --Martintg (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. My only point was that sometimes it is much easier to set simple and clear rules than to observe them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Paul supports the argument that I have been making in the case of the Philippines (that it declared independence on 1898 and established a considerable degree of diplomatic relations during the course of the war). Anyway, India is listed because it is found listed in this source , which pretty much cements its (and the Philippines') place in the list. Britain could have said no in India signing the declaration but they didn't so because of that it should be listed. I would also like to make a case for Ethiopia (listed in the source as well) as a major ally since it was independent at the time (unambiguously) and since it was a war with Italy (a member of the Axis). Also China should be listed at the very top since it was a member of the Four Policemen and is at war with Japan even before the war formally began. I feel that the article wreaks of racism since only white nations and white colonies (Australia and New Zealand) are listed at the top. Besides the "Independent-only policy" exclusively denies any non-white colony from being listed in the article.--23prootie (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please tone down this "reeks racism" line, it only weakens your arguments, I guess the issue is whether this article is about formal allies, or should we also include co-belligerents too. --Martintg (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems in adding co-belligerents since it reflects the fluidity of alignment during the course of the war, and yeah sometimes I get too carried away.--23prootie (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a simple test for whether a country is independent: did it declare war separately? If so then it should be listed; if not, then not. I don't know the specifics of Tuva, but it should be a simple question to answer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this link provided earlier by Jacurek should give us some guidance. Let’s reach a consensus in a civil atmosphere before we edit the page please.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Stick to sources

In regards to the above discussions, there's no need to debate what constituted an 'independent' country and if these should be automatically included or not. Let's stick to what can actually be sourced. For example, does anyone have any sources which state that Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico were among the 'Allies' of the war? - this looks ridiculous and I've never seen it in a published source. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick you are correct, Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico were not Allies of WW II. They need to be deleted--Woogie10w (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree--Jacurek (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. "Who fought in WWII" is one of the classic cases of creeping inclusionism on Misplaced Pages. Everyone wants to say "my country did that too" and "lots of Alaskans/Puerto Ricans/Hawaiians give their lives" is hard to argume with. But I think we have to here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants Alaska to be included into the article, he must provide a solid ground for such a claim. However, the ground must be really solid (so I don't believe it is possible).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How much autonomy did Hawaii have anyway? --Martintg (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly not that much, it was an incorporated territory meaning integral part of the United States. It did however had a working government and constitution. Out of the three it was only Puerto Rico that was not incorporated.--23prootie (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To discuss Hawaii seriously, at least one reliable source has to be presented that confirms that Hawaii was an independent state, for instance, an evidence must be presented that the local government had an authority to declare a war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is Bahawalpur (princely state) listed as an Allied nation?. This is new to me, only on Misplaced Pages is it listed an Allied nation. Is there a verifiable source for this post?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia

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

Edits by 23prootie

Sorry 23prootie don't take it personally but you did make few bad changes to the article recently. I was just wondering if you could stop making changes for a while or talk to people on the talk page before making them? And again please do not be offended o.k.? Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would stop making "bad edits" if you specify what they are and how "bad" they are exactly. And I'm not going to be offended if the reason has some basis.--23prootie (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well...edits such as placing Ethiopia as a major Allie "sandwiched" between Poland and France for example...but there is more and sorry (again no offence) but it is embarrassing to talk about it...just read the talk page please.--Jacurek (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see ya'll talking here. Please come to a consensus about what countries to include in the lead prior to any more alterations. I'm sure you will find that it's a much better way to do what we're all here to do... to improve the article and, thus, Misplaced Pages. This is not an easy debate to settle. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a brief mention in the lede of every society that acted against the Axis powers. The article is titled "Allies of World War II" after all. Just a very brief mention, though, as they can be elaborated upon later in the body of the article. If you disagree with this, then you need to have a very good reason, because the very good reason I've heard for including the allies in the lede is that they ALL deserve to be mentioned in the lede. Each and every country, each and every individual who fought and died, or who fought and lived, or who helped in any way to propel the Allies forward to victory deserve to be mentioned. Of course, I don't expect you to include my dad in the lede, or even in the article; however, every society, every national group of people, does deserve mention. That's a hard reality to get around. So good luck in your endeavors. And please, please settle your diffs here, because edit warring cannot and does not improve articles nor Misplaced Pages!
 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Paine_Ellsworth I appreciate your comment however comparing Ethiopian contribution to French is "a little" to much don't you think? Also you don't see anything wrong with elevating Mexico, Brazil or Belgium for example to a status of "major ally" in the lead and placing them next to Canada or Poland? Please...--Jacurek (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Paine_Ellsworth ..by the way 23prootie just reverted everything so the nonsense continues, partly because of your not well thought comment. Good luck in fixing the article because I will not help you anymore. Once Salvation Army and the Vatican finds its way to a major ally list next to the UK and the US, I will let you know.--Jacurek (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Jacurek, you're right on about the Edit summary comment. I suppose I was just a little frustrated, because everytime I turned around (it seemed) I was coming back here to clean up minor errors. But you're right, that's our job, too. Keep on keepin' on, and Best of Everything to You and Yours!

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem..I was frustrated when I wrote that comment also. Of course I will help.--Jacurek (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think comparing any of the allies to each other is a little too much, Jacurek. They're all allies. It was the Ethiopian war just before WWII that broke up the League of Nations and pushed the Italian fascists into the lap of the Nazis. It was the Allies that cleaned Italy out of Ethiopia allowing H. Selassie back into Addis Ababa (New Flower) and reconstitute his feudal state (the last feudal state in the world, by the way). I wouldn't be surprised if the Axis powers didn't have a covert hand in it as well, because the Nazis knew they needed Italy. There are no clear-cut lines here, Jacurek, neither sharply defined territories (For example, the huge Ogaden desert, while at the time claimed by both Ethiopia and Italy, had for the most part Somalian nomads roaming there. Still does in fact, even though now the whole desert is claimed by Ethiopia.) nor is the timeline clear-cut. Several violent events happened before WWII "officially" began, and if they hadn't happened, there might not have been a WWII. As much as I feel great disdain for what Haile S. did to his countrymen on a national level, he, by virtue of being the emperor of Ethiopia, was after all one of the Allied leaders of WWII.

Also, I don't think anybody thinks of Mexico, Brazil or Belgium as "major allies", but the title of this article is not "Major Allies of WWII", is it. Let me state finally that I have no stake in how this debate turns out. The only consideration I have is for improvement of this article. So if you two must edit war, please watch your punctuation and other minor stuff. And 23prootie? In my opinion you are making the Republic of China link way too focused. Linking directly to the TOP of the Republic of China article does the job much better. It's more focused than China, but not "too" focused.

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  17:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia again

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

Lede's first sentence

It has some issues that I would like to discuss.
The first lede's sentence is:

"The Allies of World War II were the countries, satellite states, colonies or political and military organizations that were officially or unofficially opposed to the Axis powers during the Second World War. "

Firstly, the guidelines do not require citations to be in the lede. Therefore, I don't understand the need of the citation in the first sentence. Secondly, the source does not support the text. EB states that:

"In World War II the chief Allied Powers were Great Britain, France (except during the German occupation, 1940–44), the Soviet Union (after its entry in June 1941), the United States (after its entry on Dec. 8–11, 1941), and China. More generally the Allies included all the wartime members of the United Nations, the signatories to the Declaration of the United Nations. The original signers, of Jan. 1, 1942, were Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, Salvador, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, and Yugoslavia; subsequent wartime signers were the Philippines, Mexico, Ethiopia, Iraq, Free French, and Free Danes."

Therefore, the definition of the Allies as "the countries, satellite states, colonies or political and military organizations that were officially or unofficially opposed to" is in contradiction with the cited source, that provides a limited and concrete list of the Allies.
Moreover, even if we leave EB behind the scope, the word "unofficially" made the definition redundantly vague and, as a result, made possible to include all non-Axis countries into the list. I modified it accordingly. Thirdly, what does "The Allies of World War II were the countries, satellite states, colonies or political and military organizations" mean? Since the Red Army or Chinese Communists were, accordingly, military and political organisations, then we have to name them among the Allies separately (alnog with the USSR and ROC). Of course, it is a nonsense. I changed that.
The Allies were the states, or, in limited number of cases, the underground movements that were subsequently recognized as the governments of their states. The Allies were independent countries, i.e. the countries that were considered independent by at least one reliable source, and the countries whose governments had a right to declare a war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we also want to make a distinction between formal allies and co-belligerents, it would be useful. --149.135.66.235 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The list above is what I have been advocating all along. There is an official list but some people (Jacurek) keep insisting that only "indepedent" states belong to the list thinking they could edge out the Philippines and India. I think all countires listed above should be included in the heading.--23prootie (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the lead should include the big four only. They made the important strategy decisions for the war effort. As for the Philippines and India they should be included on the list, both nations made important contributions as semi-independant nations with separate armies. the Philippines military had 57,000 dead, more than Australia and New Zealand combined 52,000. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Finally someone listened to my suggestions.--23prootie (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So lets keep the lead simple and to the point and include just the big four. If we include one lesser country, we will have edit wars. The Philippines held the Japanese back for six months which allowed Australia and New Zealand to build up their defences, also they fought as guerrillas when the Austrailians were in New Guniea.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, a good lead should rather immediately make clear two things to avoid further confusion. Firstly, that "Allies of WWII" is only a loosely defined (nick)name for one of the two "opposing sides" of the World War. Secondly, that several countries (including major powers) "switched sides" during WWII. After that, and only after that, would it make sense to proceed with the more or less officially defined list of Allies (making clear which of them joined, or switched sides, and when). Cheers,3 Löwi (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is Bahawalpur (princely state) listed as an Allied nation?. This is new to me, only on Misplaced Pages is it listed an Allied nation. Is there a verifiable source for this post?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually have no idea. I tried removing it (way back in February), when I was trying to place Egypt in the article, but every time I did do that someone reverted so there must be someone with a reason why they placed it here.--23prootie (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You were the editor who added it. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the February logs and stop attaking me. As far as I'm concerned you are the one who got me blocked (and tried removing the Philippines from the article) (Interestingly, the link I placed has Bawalpur in it...). --23prootie (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets delete Bahawalpur (princely state), Egypt was only a nominal ally, they did no fighting at all.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Paraguay and Liberia are allies yet they probably did less than French Indochina or Luxembourg. Being an ally does not include battle alone. Political maneuverings as well as the civilian impact also play a part in their role in World War II.----23prootie (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Article protected

Given the recent edit-warring, I've locked the article for two weeks. Although there have been some violations of the spirit (if not perhaps the letter!) of WP:3RR, I hope that by not applying any individual sanctions I can encourage all involved editors to engage productively here on the talk page without worrying about what others are doing on the article. The protection's duration can be extended or reduced as necessary; if changes that can be shown to have consensus are required in the meantime, you can use {{editprotected}} to request an admin to make the edit. EyeSerene 10:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit needed in lede sentence

{{editprotected}} "The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed to the Axis powers during the Second World War." Thank you very much!
 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  01:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Obvious grammatical error so Done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rjd0060!

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  02:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Norway

I think the changes that have been made to this article make sense, and it is also correct that Norway is still on the list, for several reasons. First of all, Norway fought the German invaders for two months (9 April - 10 June, 1940) in mainland Norway, alone and together with the Allies (UK, France and Poland). The subsequent government-in-exile controlled the gold reserves and what was the fourth largest, and perhaps most modern, merchant fleet in the World (Nortraship), and paid for the rebuilding of the Norwegian military. The relationship with the UK was formalised with the Armed Forces Agreement on 28 May, 1941. If we are going to be very technical about it there were also parts of the Kingdom of Norway that remained unoccupied. The weather station on Jan Mayen began sending their reports to the UK, and although the Norwegians abandoned the station for some months the island was never under German control. Svalbard was also never under German control, although they did operate some weather stations on the archipelago after 1943. Norwegian military personnel also set foot on the mainland again as the Soviets began the liberation of northern Norway in late 1944. -- Nidator 11:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Belarus, Ukraine, and the Lede section

Hey guys, I think I have an idea on what to put in the lede section. This source A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 Interim Meeting of Foreign Ministers, Moscow] basically has two list, namely:

• Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America, China, France, Australia, Belgium, Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Greece, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Union of South Africa, Yugoslavia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

• Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States, China, France, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and the Philippine Commonwealth.

So I guess that's pretty obvious who to list. (With the noteworthy inclusions of Belarus and Ukraine).--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ) 19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Stalin insisted Ukraine and Belorussia to be a separate members of UNO, however it was a purely formal step (and, importantly, it was done post factum). In addition, Avalon project contains primary sources. We cannot draw any conclusions based on primary sources.
In connection to that, do you have any secondary source that mention Ukraine or Belorussia among belligerents during WWII (not after)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm fine in excluding those two, but what I am trying to say is that there is an explicit inclusion of Brazil, India, Ethiopia, South Africa, and the Philippine Commonwealth so there should be no controversy on those states.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ) 05:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Defeated Axis Powers

I removed the defeated Axis Powers from the list. Their previous inclusion in the list was completely uncorrect both on an international law plan and on political plan. Certainly, they were granted the status of cobelligerant countries, but they were never accepted between the United Nations (in fact, they were allowed to join the UNO only in 1955). Their status allowed them to declare war on Germany if they wished, but their goal was only to help UN to expel Nazis from their countries (delimited by 1939 boundaries: their armies were totally forbidden to exit from their States!), so receiving "discounts" in future peace treaties. But they still defeated countries, not allies: never, in history, we saw a country imposing a peace treaty to their....ally, as it happened to these nations in 1947! Surely, in history, many States changed their allies during a war (e.g.: the Thirty Years War), but only after they signed full inter-war peace treaties. A cobelligerancy status is NOT an alliance status.
I hope I helped to give more order to this page.--Cusio (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you. With the exception of Finland, these countries changed regimes in 1943-45, and all these regimes declared war against the Axis and fought abroad. Take Romania as an example. In Return to Diversity: A Political History of East Central Europe Since World War II, Joseph Rotschild writes: "... an armistice was concluded with the Allied powers on September 12, 1944 ... On August 25, Romania had joined the Allies against Germany, and on September 7, it declared war on Hungary. Having fielded twenty-seven divisions and suffered 500,000 casualties (of whom 300,000 died) in Hitler's war against Russia ... and having then pulled off the most decisive volte-face of the war ... Romania was now to contribute another twenty-secen divisions and suffer a furhter 170,000 casualties (of whom 111,000 died) in the final Allied campaigns against Hitler." (p. 50) As for Bulgaria, their contribution to the Allied cause in 1944-45 was larger than their earlier contribution to the Axis cause, engaging 340,000 troops and losing 32,000 of them where they earlier had avoided participating in the main military campaigns of the Axis. Your claim that the former Axis powers did not fight outside of their own borders is incorrent: According to Misplaced Pages's sourced articles on these offensives, Romania participated in the Siege of Budapest, Bulgaria in the Belgrade Offensive. These countries did not join the UN and had to sign formal peace treaties with the allies after the war, true, but since this page uses a rather loose definition of the Allies (several of the countries listed never signed the UN declaration) they should be included, with a notification that their status was that of a co-belligerant and that they were former Axis powers. 96T (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unclear the domain of this page. Its title is not List of countries which declared war on Germany during WW2, its title is ALLIES of World War II: so, this page must include all countries which were ACCEPTED into the alliance whose official name was United Nations (and this acceptance must be referenced). Those listed countries which never signed the UN declaration must be deleted, if they were not founding members of UNO in 1945. Take the peace treaty with Finland (1947), as exemple, which begins as follow:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Czechoslovakia, India, New Zealand, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Union of South Africa, as the States which are at war with Finland and actively waged war against the European enemy states with substantial military forces, hereinafter referred to as "the Allied and Associated Powers", of the one part,

and Finland, of the other part; .....

I think this official source (and we can accept it as a big, big source) is very clear: USSR, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, etc are the ALLIED Powers; instead, Finland is the other part, it is in opposition against the Allied Powers. Peace treaties with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania are similar. --Cusio (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your define the Allies as "the alliance whose official name was United Nations" (a name used from January 1942), but the definition used in the first sentence of this page is "the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War (1939-1945)" - a definition all the post-Axis states fall under. Their removal does not make sense unless the definition in the header is changed, and that is a pretty drastic change that needs discussion. So I'm readding them for now and if you want them gone (or moved to a different section), you should open a discussion on how to define "Allies" instead. 96T (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, wikipedia doesn't allow original researches. We can not invent a definition of the Allies, the Allies were an official group of States with a clear historical definition. The membership between the alliance was clearly definied, and we must accept it. Otherwise, discussions about unrecognized governments, governments-in-exile, defeated powers, colonies and resistences, can last years without solutions.--Cusio (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The definition we currently use is the same as Encyclopædia Britannia's. You claim that there is a clear definition, but countries that did not sign the United Nations declaration are still referred to as "Allies" by major historians and the term Allies is very widely used for the pre-UN alliance against Germany. What we should do in my opinion is reorganize this page completely, creating one section for countries that signed the UN declaration and one for other countries that were at war with one or more Axis power, and organize them into two handy tables, naming when each country declared war on or was attacked by what Axis power and other relevant information. 96T (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Umh... I think we have problmes with weblinks. When I open the page of EB you linked, I read:
In World War II the chief Allied Powers were Great Britain, France (except during the German occupation, 1940–44), the Soviet Union (after its entry in June 1941), the United States (after its entry on Dec. 8–11, 1941), and China. More generally the Allies included all the wartime members of the United Nations, the signatories to the Declaration of the United Nations. The original signers, of Jan. 1, 1942, were Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, Salvador, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, and Yugoslavia; subsequent wartime signers were the Philippines, Mexico, Ethiopia, Iraq, Free French, and Free Danes.
I don't read any statement about Italy or similar countries.--Cusio (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Someone added Mongolia and Tanu Tuva as members of the United Nations. I did not find any official act saying this. Can anybody find sources about?--79.24.166.165 (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a long-running disruptive editor who adds those countries - thanks a lot for spotting this and removing them. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D. I expect you to take your words on my disruptive behaviour back. During the discussion on this talk page I persented several reliable sources that confim both Tuva's and Mongolia's participation in WWII and their independetn status. With regards to Ukraine and Belorussia, no sources exist that confirm their independent declaration of a war on the Axis, and their participation in WWII as the Soviet Union's allies. According to the Soviet constitution, foreign policy was the central government's prerogative, so the Soviet republics simply had no right to declare a war. Anyway, I presented the sources (for some reason, they were removed from the main article, however they can be found on this talk page) that confitm Tuva's and Mongolia's participation in WWII as Soviet allies, so I sustained a burden of evidence. Please, provide reliable sources that confirm that Ukraine and Belorussia particiated in WWII as independent parties.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. I didn't add Mongolia and Tuva as members of the Uited Nations, I added them as the Sooviet Union's allies. I don't think this is not sufficient for being listed in this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Egypt

It was my understanding that, notwithstanding the presence of British forces in Egypt and the fact that fighting between German/Italian and British forces occurred on Egyptian soil, Egypt actually remained officially neutral until some time in 1945. What is the basis for the claim that it declared war in 1940? john k (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

After some googling, The Country Studies series says that Egypt remained formally neutral for most of the war, and only declared war on Germany in February 1945. This article seems to be clearly wrong. john k (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Even if formally independent, Egypt was de facto a puppet state of Britain until it became a republic. When the Italian troops entered on Egyptian soil, the King of Egypt still remained neutral. His goal? To maintain good relations with Italy and Germany, so claiming to maintain his throne even if the Axis would win the war. Only when the Axis defeat became clear, Egypt (as Turkey) officially entered in war with its troops.--95.245.130.162 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Former Axis states

The definition of 'allies' on this page is merely "the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War (1939–1945)," which clearly also includes Romania, Italy, Finland and Bulgaria, whenever they were allied or not. Either the definition should be changed, or these countries should be included. Yonaka (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We ought to have a section about the former axis powers who became co-belligerents. I believe there used to be one. john k (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't create history nor historical definitions. The Allies of WW2 were a clear and structured coalition of States, with an official membership and three leading Powers. If the official list of the Allies is in contrast with a wikipedia definition, we must change the wiki definition, not history. Italy was never an Allied power during WW2. After 1943 it was an occupied country, with some regions directly administred by the AMGOT and a central government generally subjected to the Allied Control Commission, an army disbanded for the 95% of its force, and a dramatic inflation caused by the Allied Military Currency. More, its state of war against the Allies was only suspended, not finished: this is the effect of all armistices in history, the state of war being officially closed by a peace treaty (of the debellatio -latin for full annexation- of the enemy). As many of you would know, Russia is still tecnically in a state of war with Japan, a peace treaty never being signed (and Sweden ended its state of war against San Marino in 2001 only, a simple armistice having been occurred between the two countries after the end of the 30 Years War in 1648).--79.54.154.62 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Post scriptum. Obviously, we can create a separate page speaking about the co-belligerents of the Allies.

Then the first sentance must be changed (I have no idea about how to make it sensible while excluding states contributing to the allied victory; "the Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War...well except some of them"). Yonaka (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I could suggest something like this: "The Allies of WW2 were one of the two diplomatic and military blocks of nations which fought the greatest conflict of the 20th century. They took the name of United Nations upon an idea of US President F.D. Roosevelt, and their legal link became the Declaration of 1942."--79.54.154.62 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

B class?

Can someone reassess the article for meeting B-class criteria? No outstanding citation requests remain... --illythr (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Declarations of war

I don't know exactly how to incorporate this information into the article, but the Declaration of War section should be retooled. The Axis powers were not a monolithic bloc, and very few countries did actually unilaterally declare war upon all of its members (whoever that may have been at any point in time). A large number of Allied countries declared war on some of its powers but not others, or just on the principal members (mainly Germany and Japan, and to a lesser extent Italy). To name but two examples, Great Britain was at war with Finland for the majority of hostilities, but the United States never was. After Pearl Harbor the United States also immediately declared war on the Axis' "Big Three", but only did so to its minor members (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, etc.) at a significantly later point in time, because it still hoped to see these countries withdraw their support for the Axis war effort, or at least return to a status of neutrality.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the United States did not declare war on italy and Germany; Italy and Germany declared war on the United States three days after the United States declared war on Japan. Which I suppose only goes to reinforce your point. Yaush (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Two principal members of these alliances, Japan and the USSR didn't declare war on each other until the very end of WWII: Japan because the Nomonhan 'lesson' was duly learned by it, and the USSR because its involvement in the East would distract it from the European theatre, which was considered by all Allies as more important.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War (1939–1945).

The basic definition of the article is unprecize, it suggests that all Allies opposed the Axis 1939-1945, which is obviously false.Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say, "The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers at some point during the Second World War (1939–1945)." -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So Romania becomes an Ally.Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

'Soviet Union' section suggests that the SU invided Poland in 1939 as an Ally.Xx236 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek purged leftists from his party and fought against the Chinese Communist Party

• Did he "purge leftists from his party and fought against the Chinese Communist Party?"
• If yes, he was terribly clumsy.
• He may have purged "leftists" but not Communist secret agents in his government.Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Were Poland and SU Allies?

• Soviet partizans and agents fought Polish underground.
• Stalin accused the Polish government of collaborating with Nazi Germany and broke off diplomatic relations (in 1943).
• Red Army and NKVD imprisoned and/or killed Polish soldiers and civilians during and after Operation Tempest, including Augustów roundup in July 1945.

Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Franco-Polish coalition

It is not completely correct to say that they were the original Allies for several reasons. Firstly, the Franco-British guarantees to Poland were strictly anti-German, so that was not a full scale alliance. Secondly, Anglo-French alliance ceased to exist after France had been defeated and surrendered. As a result, new allies never joined the Anglo-Franco-Polish coalition, but created an absolutely new alliance de novo.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That "only" you added there is redundant. "... in the event either was attacked by Nazi Germany" is unambiguous enough in determining the scope of the pact. --illythr (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

China was divided into the Nationalist Government of the Republic of China and Communist-controlled China during World War II

A user keeps retracting my edits, China was divided into two factions - Nationalist and Communist - due to the long Chinese Civil War. The Nationalists of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Communists of Mao Zedong reluctantly cooperated. US ambassador to China during the war, Patrick J. Hurley met with both Chiang and Mao, the US recognized both leaders as the the powers that be in China.--R-41 (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The allies are:United states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.112.194 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor powers vs major powers

With all due respect to the military effort of Belgium and Netherlands, placing these countries among major powers is a gross exaggeration. If anything, they should be replaced by Poland, whose forces put together were the 4th largest allied army in Europe, larger than the French Army. Tymek (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

They were major powers, they had colonies and major economic resources. France was a major power in Europe. The Netherlands had a huge and economically valuable colony in Indonesia that was known as the Dutch East Indies. It was overrun by Japanese forces who targeted it because of its rich natural resources. Belgium had the Belgian Congo. The issue of Poland will require more evidence, such as the strength of its army in terms of technology, its economic resources, etc. If such evidence demonstrates that Poland was a serious contender in affecting European affairs or world affairs from its own actions, then it could be mentioned as a major power.--R-41 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How can Yugoslavia be considered at the same level as Mexico and Brazil, I am pretty sure that Yugoslavia had significant troop levels and impact on outcome of war, at least when compared to Mexico and Brazil. I do think Poland and Yugoslavia have been given the short end of the stick when it comes to World War II history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.114.81 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia - incorrect info

Political Map

Is there an existing (or would anyone be willing to create a) political map which is color coded to show the allies/axis powers? The Allies_of_World_War_I article has one that is featured prominently at the top, and this helps illustrate the article's purpose and content succinctly. 108.202.193.145 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That picture

The photograph captioned "British soldiers in Northwest Europe. 1944-1945." is shown the wrong way round.
For example, all berets are pulled down to the left. (The only army I know that do this is the French); the buttons on the soldiers 3rd and 4th from the left and on the extreme right fasten on the er... right; and finally the Bren Gun belonging to the 3rd soldier from the left is shown with the cocking handle on the left, (it should be on the right). There are others, but that should be enough examples.

I would change it myself, but lack the expertise. Short of deleting the picture entirely, does anyone know how to turn it round?

RASAM (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia - minor or major combatant?

I’m a little bit confused about the distinction between major and minor combatants. What are the criteria for this distinction? For example, I don’t see how was Yugoslavia classified as minor combatant? According to Basil Davidson quoted at Misplaced Pages's Yugoslav Front, Tito’s Partisans forced Axis powers to deploy 30 divisions in that country. During the war, the country lost 6-11% of 1939 population, and over 350,000 soldiers. --N Jordan (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have made the distinction on whether the combatant was a great power. However, that would mean that Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands should probably go under minor combatants. Which I'm actually okay with. --Yaush (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Major powers" in a WWII context customarily means either the "Big Three" or the "Big Five". I agree with Yaush that if it is interpreted thus, Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands should join the minors. However, if major is "significant combatant" above a certain arbitrary threshold, then Yugoslavia easily comes above B and NL and is close behind PO, as N Jordan points out. Regardless, the current status quo cannot stand. So what do people want, big five or major combatants above a threshold?
Some observations: - Greece could considered equal or above BE/NL. - Dominions are included under Britain, which includes New Zealand and South Africa that can be considered lesser combatants than BE/Nl. victor falk 08:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Big Five model is better, as it is preferable to follow established usage in the real world to defining an arbitrary cut-off line in a local wikiconsensus. I've also reorganised more chronologically, as it makes it easier both to read the article from start to end and to follow what happened to an individual country in relation to others in the war. victor falk 16:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Albania

Albania is listed twice, among the minor affiliated state combatants and as a Soviet client state. The country was occupied by Italy before the beginning of WWII (in April 1939). I think each country should be listed only once. As far I know, the communist uprising started in 1941, and the country was not liberated by the Soviets. In 1944 communists took power after the withdraw of Germans. At the same time, Albania was a client state of Italy from 1939 to 1943. The country participated in invasion of Greece and partition of Yugoslavia 1941. Albania declared war on the United States in 1941. So, what would be the status of Albania? N Jordan (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Allies of World War II

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Allies of World War II's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

• From Luxembourg in World War II: Yapou, Eliezer (1998). "Luxembourg: The Smallest Ally". Governments in Exile, 1939–1945. Jerusalem.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• From Belgian Resistance: Yapou, Elizer (1998). "4: Belgium: Disintegration and Resurrection". Governments in Exile, 1939–1945. Jerusalem.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• From Belgian Congo in World War II: Yapou, Eliezer (1998). "4: Belgium: Disintegration and Resurrection". Governments in Exile, 1939–1945. Jerusalem.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• From Belgium in World War II: Yapou, Eliezer (2006). "Belgium: Disintegration and Resurrection". Governments in Exile, 1939–1945. Jerusalem.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox

See Talk:Axis_powers#RfC:_Infobox for a consolidated discussion of whether this article should have an infobox. Srnec (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• YES the infobox is a part of every major Misplaced Pages article, and it is a useful tool, easily allowing a new reader to familiarize themselves with the subject matter of the article. So, this article should also have an info box. --E-960 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Allies" in other languages

I've just re-removed the text from the infobox's native_name field which asserts that the name for the Allies in each of the major non-English speaking states was exact translation of "Allies" into the various languages. Aside from such material being of limited use to our readers (this is the English-language Misplaced Pages), I find it highly unlikely that the exact same phrase was used in each country. Going by Misplaced Pages article names (not a scientific measure!), it appears that France and Poland might use the same word , while Russia appears to use "Anti-Hitler coalition" . Citations are needed to support such translations IMO. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I can understand including the names if there was significant use of these foreign language names in English works. cf Regia Marina, Kriegsmarine. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

They weren't even consistently called the Allies in English. Roosevelt liked to call them the United Nations and Churchill like to call them the Grand Alliance. Ditch the foreign names, which already are looking unverifiable as consistent usage. --Yaush (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

STOP trying to destroy the article, and pick out exemptions to the rule, because exemptions to the rule are not the RULE. In French as in English and Polish all the referred to the alliance as THE ALLIES in their respective language. If that was not the case in Russian then just remove the Russian text, or keep the Russian equivalent of the name, just like in the Axis powers page. Where each country called the military pact something different in their language. But, to argue that the names are different and the only solution to remove everything is wrong, this is an article which covers a specific WW2 topic and a high level of detail is appropriate. --E-960 (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing native names of the Alliance

User:Nick-D first off, stop Edit Warring… and don't try to bring in those same petty arguments that are destroying the infobox on the WWII page here. This page is devoted to a specific subject matter related to WWII and it is an appropriate place to add detail… as you and your colleagues, systematically remove detailed descriptions from WWII page arguing that a reader can go into a specific page that's devoted to topic. Now, all of a sudden you come into another WWII related WP page and your only objective is to remove stuff. You need to quit that. --E-960 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. It has been mentioned in the previous section that the names are uncited. If you feel an editor is in the wrong, the appropriate thing to bring to bear is policy and sourcing not confrontation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point, this is long standing material, and the burden of proof in on the person trying to make the change. Look at the Misplaced Pages edit cycle guidelines (when an editor gets reverted, you don't revert again, but bring the issue up for discussion). Also, Nice to see you in this article as well GraemeLeggett. I noticed that you and User:Nick-D found another Infobox to take apart. Using the same tactic of starting an argument over a petty issue using some "exemption" to the rule and trying to make it the rule, then saying that the only way to fix this is to remove all detail. This is suspect because I have not seen User:Nick-D make any useful additions to this article before, yet strangely he shoots in and starts to remove things form this Infobox as well, then conveniently you come in GraemeLeggett supporting User:Nick-D's actions yet you yourself did not engage in this pager for a very long time. But, just like on the WW2 page the same "group" of editors seem to show up on cue and automatically support each other. You think I'm making a wild accusation, just look at the WW2 talk page. --E-960 (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I am actually rather happy to discuss this matter (hence why I started the thread above), but I don't fancy engaging with conspiracy theory type stuff like what you're trying to advance here (I've actually been editing this article for years, for better or for worse), or wild accusations that I'm trying to "destroy" the article(!). As Graeme says, please provide sources to support your contention that what's in the infobox are in fact the "native" names for this grouping of countries. It would also contribute to the discussion if you could explain your perspective on why this material is helpful in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that the name of the military alliance was the Allies in all those languages (take out some personal variations from Roosevelt or Chruchill; not going to base this article on personalities). You yourself provided the sources above. BTW: Hitler called the United States... the North American Union. So, should we take that into account when referring to the US from a German perspective??? These are stupid arguments designed to saturate the debate with exceptions to the rule, then you Nick-D come in and say "this is so complicated" the only reasonable solution is to take everything out all together. This strategy is fully on display in the WW2 and this is what's happening here, now --E-960 (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's obvious, can you please provide the sources which support your position? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great if you could provide references to the names used for the allegiance in France, Poland, China and the other countries listed. If you can't provide those references, WP:V isn't met. There's also the issue of what value this material adds: could you please outline your views on this? Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with foreign language sources (WP:NOENG). Just for the record, this page has been on my watchlist since an edit I made in 2005; which probably shows I need to do maintenance on my watchlist. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The material add depth, something that the average Australian sorely lacks. So, I guess your next suggestion will be to deconstruct the page even more, and just suggest links to other articles which detail each countries' specific contributions to WWII contributions… no need for depth on this page right?... example: Cuba during World War II. --E-960 (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)