Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 3 June 2023 (→Replacing The Big Three with Principal Allied powers and adding France and China to it?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

Template:Vital article

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

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

Date Soviet Union joined Allies

Hello all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, your redundant formalism is on brink of OR.

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

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

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

Your first source says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________

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

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

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

I think it is you who should stop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I fixed that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That doesn't work like this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

British Ceylon

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

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

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

Philippines

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC Date Soviet Union joined the Allies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

Additional arguments against July are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  2. Irrelevant how long it lasted.

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

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

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

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

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

  2. "Irrelevant how long it lasted" Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Irrelevant.

  2. Germano-Soviet of 1939.

  3. Irrelevant.

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

  1. Then your original argument is irrelevant too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  3. Not true.

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Not true; the WW2 started in 1939

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

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

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

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

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

  Romania was neutral.

  Hungary was neutral.

  Italy was neutral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Aemilius Adolphin: I completely agree with yours I think the problem is the wording "joined the Allies" followed by a specific date. However, the current infobox neither say nor infer the date the Big Three member "joined the Allies". It is intuitively clear that the dates and events in the infobox refer to the start of de facto and de iure state of was between the Big Three members and at least of the Axis member. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Before January 1942, they refer to the Big Three members as de facto allies. At least, that is what majority WP:RS say. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• A significant number of references to "the Allies" in historical texts, and we're talking about wiki-reliable texts, of course, are unfortunately retroactive appellations, i.e. the author might be referring to the eventual members of the Alliance as members of the Alliance, i.e. "allies", even for the period of time when they provenly were not in it. See, in this context, an accurate exception pointed out in the remark above by Paul Siebert. -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Paul Siebert, @The Gnome: Unfortunately, this is not true. First of all, even if the RS would use the term retroactively it is not relevant, because we use the terminology accepted in the scientific literature and not the one used historically. However, it is not relevant because the term "Allies" to describe the powers fighting Germany was already in use since 1939. There are many examples, such as the American Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies founded in 1940. The term Allies had been in use since World War 1, and in 1939 it was revived and took on a new meaning.

  The Grand Alliance and the Allies are not the same thing, I would ask you not to confuse the two terms. What's more out of the two, it was the term "Grand Alliance" that was coined after the war by Winston Churchill.

  The Big Three is a term for the three biggest Allied powers, and it is also not synonymous with the term "Allies." Marcelus (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere did I use, or even mention, the term "Grand Alliance", so it is not possible for me to be confused on it. What I wrote, and re-iterated further down below, in the section titled "Proposal for compromise, straw poll", stands in full. Find us a written text whereupon the Big Three establish the Allied camp and you have a winner. As to the choice you offer between "scientific literature" and "historical ", that too is null and void: Historical texts considered reliable by Misplaced Pages do fall for the error I pointed out. Fortunately, the majority of reliable, historical texts, as well as the better ones, avoid the error. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The Big Three did not form the "Allies" because the Allies already existed at the time of the Big Three's establishment. Marcelus (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "the Allies existed" does not mean anything. The nations of the Alliance existed, yes. The Alliance itself was never de jure established, not beyond the written documents already offered here - which have little to do with the dates bandied about. Operation Barbarossa did not automatically place the USSR in the Allied camp; America was not an Ally until Germany declared war on the United States; and so on. The British, the Americans, and the Soviets became Allies de facto which, therefore, makes this a historical development demanding care and exactitude in its presentation. No short cuts, no mangling for the sake of "having something in the infobox", no inaccuracies are permitted. This is an issue of the utmost importance. -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "the Allies existed" is very much meaningful, it means that powers that were fighting Nazi Germany were calling that themselves already in 1939, and that's how modern histriography are calling them today (which is the most important for us). Other countries later joined the group, but the group itself was already established. Marcelus (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Let’s keep in mind it’s chiefly about what sources call them today. For example, in 1939 few thought they were in a world war, but now we all know they were. Similarly, in early June 1941 few expected the Soviets to switch to the Allies, but now we all know they were going to. Yes, we may identify a single date or a series of events that brought a state into the Allies, but let’s remember we are viewing this all through the lens of history sources, and not of the historical actors.  —Michael Z. 15:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Yours "in 1939 few thought they were in a world war, but now we all know they were" is exactly what Reynolds says. However, the very same author says that both the US and USSR stayed apart from the conflict that started in 1939. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• June Or alternatively rephrase to clarify the stages of a process. There is clearly no single, simple date when USSR 'signed up' - but the invasion is the de facto moment when USSR's interests and actions aligned with those of US & UK - the gradual formalisation and practical implementation of that alignment is an extended process, but there can be no doubt what initiated it. No source seems to support any other date as other than a part of the process. Pincrete (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This RfC was incorrectly formulated

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

A solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look, you are changing your arguments on fly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, thanks.

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

We are actually discussing two different ideas:

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

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

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

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

As I said before, I would support a compromise:

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

United Kingdom (at war with Germany from Sep 1939)

Soviet Union (at war with Germany from June 1941)

United States (at war with Axis from December 1941)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do you see any speculation here?

And why all of that is irrelevant?

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

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

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

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

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

Additional source for 12 July date

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is exactly what I asked.

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

Don't change info box until RfC is completed

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

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

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

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

wp:brd and WP:ONUS are clear, we wait until there is wp:consneus for any change. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise, straw poll

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

Info box

Under the big three, we change the text:

United Kingdom: Current text states "Sep 1939". Change to: "at war with Germany from Sep 1939"

Soviet Union: Current text states: "June 1941." Change to: "at war with Germany from Jun 1941"

United States: Current text states: "Dec 1941". Change to "at war with Axis from Dec 1941"

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

Lead

The relevant sentence in the lead is: "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies in June 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union."

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

Please indicate Yes or No if you agree to these proposed changes. Please give a one line statement if you wish to clarify. Please do not engage in a lengthy discussion of side issues. There is room for that above. Please do not try to bludgeon the discussion. Thank you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Aemilius Adolphin Can you amend the proposal by clarifying (quoting) what is the original text to be changed? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus. Sorry about that. Done. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. The proposed new wording seems fine and arguably better. If anyone wants to tell me otherwise, do ping me and I'll review any counter arguments. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus Sorry to bother you again.. I just put the previous wording of the info box. You might want to check this because one editor has objected to it. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Disagree with all proposals submitted so far. This discussion's purpose is to identify the date when each country that fought with the Allies in WW2 joined that alliance. This is a problematic and complex quest, yet we seem to be trying to have some clear, concise, and simple notation of time. There isn't any such!

Take, for instance, the issue of the Soviet Union: On 17 September 1939, the USSR attacked and invaded Poland and occupied an eastern region of that country, in accordance with the German-Soviet non-aggression pact. Does that mean that the USSR entered World War Two on that date? It does not. (It did not even officially declare itself at war, though that's a technical detail.) The Soviets began fighting the Germans as soon as they were invaded, but, again, this does not mean they de facto joined the Allies; and which "Allies"? The U.S. was not at war with anyone at the time. Going forward to identify when all the three major, Allied superpowers formed their alliance, one cannot identify one single document establishing the alliance's formulation.

We only have the well known United Nations Declaration. Still looking for one single date? The Declaration was signed by the U.S., the U.K., the U.S.R.R., and China on 1 January 1942, in short form. Dare we say the Allied camp had not formed before that date, when the fighting was intense in almost every theatre? Dare we ignore the fact that the Declaration was signed the next day by two dozen more countries? And that it went on getting signed by others continuously until 1945?

I suggest a modest and careful and accurate approach to this issue, whereby we list for each country the details of its involvement in the main text. Let's avoid the unavoidable, Procrustian mangle of historical facts that the infobox format necessitates. And I like infoboxes. -The Gnome (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, seems like the best solution. As to some concern regarding the non-existance of specific dates, it is as we have seen over this previous dreary discussion not factually possible to give one, as there was no occasion at which all of "the allies" said that they were now "the allies". CarolingianCitizen (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• NoPewr others, this is too simplistic and seems to be just as bad as what we already have (for different reasons). Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• YesSidenote: How hard is it to count to one (sentence)? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Can users please stop adding walls of text it is making this very hard to follow. 08:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

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

Misuse of collapsing

I noticed that some involved users collapsed the above discussion. Per WP:COLLAPSENO that is not acceptable. I strongly encourage those who collapsed the posts made by others to self-revert.

Regards, Paul Siebert (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Both disputes I collapsed were fundamentally resolved. You proposed new wording, I encourage you to present it in the new post. I also advise you to be far more conciese, because you have a tendency to WP:EXHAUST nad WP:BLUDGEON, try also avoid WP:ICANTHEARYOU attitude.

Propose prefered version, provide justification for it, and let other users to comment on that. Marcelus (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I asked politely at the beginning of this section that people should give a brief one line statement to clarify whether they supported or didn't support my proposed compromise. I also indicated that extended discussion of any points they raised should go elsewhere on the thread (for example under another subsection). As other users have noted, it's almost impossible to follow the responses now and I think a collapsible box after each users' initial response and initial short justification is warranted. This will not close off discussion because if editors wish to continue a discussion on any particular point relevant to the proposed compromise wording, they can simply create a new subheading below and carry on the discussion there. @Marcelus If you are going to put a collapsible box after a comment you should do it after the original post and brief explanation and the user's signature. You cut off The Gnome's full response. Please move the box to the point after their signature. Thank you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't collapse the second discussion, I think it was done by @Random person no 362478479 () Marcelus (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, @Aemilius Adolphin, @Marcelus As Marcelus has pointed out, I was the first to collapse two parts of the straw poll section (one of those was reverted by someone). The point was not to cut off any discussions. I'm honestly sorry for creating that impression, I have absolutely no interest in suppressing any arguments or discussions here. The intention was to refactor the debate in the spirit in which this section was created, i.e. getting a short overview over where everyone stands regarding a specific proposal while leaving discussion to other sections. My action was intended as a formatting choice only, to separate the debate from the straw poll for the sake of readability. I can see how cutting off signatures by starting the collapsing after the first part of a post instead of starting the collapsing after a complete post may create issues and apologise for that choice. And again, I am sorry for creating the impression that I wanted to cut off the debate. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries, it's all fine, nothing was erased after all Marcelus (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: The discussion may be collapsed if all parties agree that some consensus is achieved. Have we already achieved consensus? In reality, you've written that you are glad that I stopped spreading a lye and almost immediately collapsed a discussion. Irrespective to everything else I demand you to explicitly and immediately apologize, or I'll report you.

@Aemilius Adolphin: The very idea to initiate a straw poll was flawed. A straw poll, especially when we are discussing such a convoluted issue, is supposed to be at the end of a discussion, not at the beginning. Imagine, some version wins, and that happens before we started to discuss all nuances? How would we deal with that situation?

WRT cutting off something, I am not sure I understand what exactly do you mean. If I accidenntally cut some commething off, and you know what exactly was affected, please, do me a favour: revert my edits and fix the text.

Thank you in advance. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert@MarcelusIt looks like the info box is generating the most heat. What if we remove all dates after the Big Three? Just state that the Big Three were the UK, Soviet Union and US? There's no need for the dates under the Former Axis powers either. We can explain their movement in the body of the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As I already explained, it seems the dates were added because there was an agreement that the Big Three should be listed not in the order the leaders appear in the WWII article (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, which reflects a relative role of each of three Ally), but in a chronological order, and the criterion was the date they declared a war on the Axis (or some Axis member). If we remove the date, then it would be logical to restore the order to "1. USSR, 2. USA, 3. Britain". Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States. Alpha order is the most neutral. The problem will be getting agreed wording on any footnotes. I'll have a think about it and see what others think. Cheers Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we may keep the general order of joining the Allies, because our controversy (June or July) doesn't affect the said order. Marcelus (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean the same order as in the mother article (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill). Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Does "Alpha" means alphabetical? If yes, then you again are challenging the previously achieved consensus. I see no reason to change the current text at all. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that removing the dates is not a bad idea. But I think footnotes should then be used to clearly explain the Soviet Union's entanglement in cooperation with Germany before 1941, as well as the circumstances of joining the Allies. The same goes for other major powers. This is important context that should not be overlooked. Marcelus (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Paul Siebert revert

@Paul Siebert why did you revert my edit? Give me substantial reason for that or restore my edit. Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:V. I still got no apologies from you. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

What is not verifable in the text I proposed. Marcelus (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

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

Soviet Union joined the allies in February 1943 I'm pretty sure. Not in 1941 Soulzsadsa (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Replacing The Big Three with Principal Allied powers and adding France and China to it?

From the way I see it, there seems to be a pretty flawed perspective that the United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States essentially paved the way for victory. While this is mostly true, it still leaves out France and China whose contributions were relatively higher than almost all of the other Allied combatants. With France, it just seems that the problem is people stereotype it as the country who fell out of the war to fast. But then again, I would like to point out that they received part of occupied Germany for a reason. China on the other hand is a different situation. They had been fighting the Japanese since 1937 and had it not been for their help, it is very possible the pacific war would have had a significantly different result. The Sino-Japanese conflict was in many ways similar to the Eastern Front. There was a country stubborn to keep fighting and another that persists for territorial influence. I am curious for all of your opinions on this change. JellyGamery (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I support adding France and China as principal allies. The info box is too complicated though, and I would support removing all the dates in which these countries purportedly "joined" the Allies and all the footnotes giving complicated and often contentious potted histories which really belong in the main body of the article. The article itself needs a lot of work. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Negative. France and China did very little fighting and not much to help win the war, and played an even smaller role in making the great decisions. Canada, for example, was much more important in winning, supplying and financing the war (though it too had very little voice). Rjensen (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. Sure France's fighting was very limited in terms of the country, but the government in exile did still contribute to the war effort. Your argument can be applied to Japan in ww1 who themselves did very little fighting and ended up getting a significant place in drawing up a treaty upon the German Empire. On the other hand, saying that the Republic of China did very little fighting is probably insulting to them. The country lost over 20 million people at the hands of the Japanese and brought consistent pressure to them throughout the entire war. At its peak during ww2, the Chinese army had over 4 million soldiers fighting on the front with Japan. JellyGamery (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with JellyGamery's statement regarding the Principal Allied powers. I believe that the reasons stated above make perfect sense since without Chinese resistance, Japan would have been able to capture territory and resources more successfully. Maybe even so that it greatly extended the amount of time WWII lasted. The Chinese efforts were very important to the Asian Front, same as the French in the African and European fronts. Shmernight (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Not to assume bad faith, but understand that changing something in an article is not a vote. You can have 99 voices in support of something and 1 opposed, and it still not be changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No the French in exile had a very minor role. China tied down massive amounts of US $$ and equipment to set up bombing =Japan. all wasted until US shifted to Pacific island bases to bomb Japan very effectively. China lost millions because it fought very poorly and could not feed or defend itself. Rjensen (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

So very similar to the Soviets? JellyGamery (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you need to read some literature before making bold claims. Actually, the only commonality between China and USSR is the fact that both countries sustained huge losses. Everything else is different.

• Chinese theatre of war was not the major theratre. In contrast, Eastern Front was the major theatre of WWII: by its scale, it was bigger than all other theatres taken together (in 1942, 80% of European Axis troops were fighting in the EF, and one million Japanese army was stationed near the Amur river, far from Burma, mainland China, Pacific, because Japan feared an attack by RKKA.)
• Even when the Western Allies joined a real war (after D-Day), only 40% of the Axis troops were fighting in the West.
• The losses sustained by the Axis in the Eastern Front exceeded combined losses in other theatres of war. In China, Japan lost less than a half of her troops (up to 500,000 out of 2,121,000 in all theatres of war).
• In 1944, when Japan was retreating in Pacific, her army was able to start Operation Ichi-Go, which was a total success. At the same time, the Red Army started Operation Bagration (the most calamitous defeat of the Axis troops, Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive, Jassy-Kishinev Offensive - each of them were more massive and more successful than any military offensive of Western Allies.
• China didn't defeat Japan: Japanese troops surrendered in China because Japan was defeated in Manchura and Pacific (as you probably know, by 2nd of September, 1945, a significant part of Chinese territory was still occupied by Japanese army, and ROC was incapable of defeating it even after Japan's army was just a pale shadow of its former self). In contrast, the war in Europe ended because the Red Army captured Berlin and Hitler committed suicide.

This list is by no means exhaustive. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "bold claims," I was simply giving an example of how the Chinese resilience could be compared to that of the Red Army. I also don't recall denying anything about what you just said. To start from the top: yes, the Chinese fighting in Asia was not a major front, but does that mean that front didn't matter? By your logic, why don't we take Japan out of the major axis powers because the front they fought on wasn't the major one. With your second point, I assume you refer to the French. In that case, my argument is that of course the French couldn't even be compared the United Kingdom or Japan in terms of strength, but if they are invited to a major role in writing up peace treaties at the end of the war, that is enough implication for me that during that period the French were regarded as among the great powers despite their lack of military power. With your third and fourth point, I'm not sure why you bring up the Eastern front. If you are trying to argue that the Soviets were more capable that the Chinese, then I would agree. If you are trying to suggest that the Chinese were incompetent, then I just wonder how they kept fighting for 8 years. Finally, I do not once recall saying the Chinese single handedly defeated Japan. They were given lots of foreign aid from the United States, as well as military assistance from them as well as the Soviet Union (toward the very end of the war), the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. From my point of view, it just seems like your primary argument is the French and Chinese weren't "as strong" as that of the combatants in Europe. If that's true, then you haven't really given a reason as to why France and the Republic of China cannot be added as Principal Allied powers. JellyGamery (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"the Chinese fighting in Asia was not a major front, but does that mean that front didn't matter?" Of course, it does matter. But that does not make China a principal Allied power (like USSR or UK).

"By your logic, why don't we take Japan out of the major axis powers because the front they fought on wasn't the major one." No. You forgot that, besides China, Japan was fighting in many treaters of war: thus, her Kwantung Army was tying down about 500,000 Soviet troops and 1000 tanks (those troops and those tanks would be very instrumental in the Eastern Front). Japan was a major opponent of the US (thereby preventing them from allocating all their resources for the war in Europe). Japan was fighting with Britain in Burma, captured Singapore and Indonesia, it sank a large number of American and British capital ships. Last but not least, Japan was the major reason why America joined the WWII.

"With your second point, I assume you refer to the French". No. Before D-Day, all land operations of the Western Allies were incomparable with the Eastern Front. Only after D-Day a real full scale land warfare between the Allies and Germany started.

" If you are trying to argue that the Soviets were more capable that the Chinese, then I would agree." No, that is not what I am saying. The Soviets were overwhelmingly more capable than the Chinese: these two powers were just incomparable.

"Finally, I do not once recall saying the Chinese single handedly defeated Japan." Again, they didn't defeat Japan at all: Japanese army was not defeated by Chinese troops until surrender of Japan in September 1945.

" your primary argument is the French and Chinese weren't "as strong" as that of the combatants in Europe" . No. My primary argument is based on the actual military contribution (losses inflicted on the Axis and territories captured/recaptured) and actual military and political influence. In these terms, the abyss separating Big Three members from other Allies is quite obvious.

No other Ally is even remotely comparable with the Big Three members. By adding China or France, you immediately open a Pandora box: if France is included, why Poland is not? If Poland is included, what about Canada? And so on, and so forth. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert First, I want to say I agree with you that the USSR was much more important than China. BUT you claim that "Chinese theatre of war was not the major theratre.". Now this is where I have a problem because that is a very Euro-centric viewpoint. Important to whom? not the major theatre to whom? Europe. But on the other hand to the 400 million people in China at the time of course it was the main theatre.

Additionally, would you knock off the "her armies", the Japanese armies were not feminine in any way, in fact they were extremely brutal to their subjects, as shown by the Bantaan Death March (which is probably what all you Euro-centric people care about anyways).

Alexysun (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let me be more specific. When I wrote that Chinese theatre was not major, I mean its importance was not sufficient for making China a "principal Allied power". Remember, that was the only theatre where China was involved. In contrast, the Eastern front was the major theatre of war (in terms of its scale and strategic importance, and, although the USSR's military activity was limited with this treatre (except its brief but impressive offensive in Manchuria), it still makes the USSR a major player.

WRT "her army", in Modern English, there are some word groups which are considered 'feminine', at least in a poetic or quaint sense. These include ships, countries and churches, for example. Therefore, if it is acceptable to describe Japan, or Britain, or Russia as "she", then the Japan's army is "her". In addition, I don't like the idea to associate such a trait as brutality or cruelty with one gender. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@JellyGamery The Soviets were crucial the war effort. Actually, the Soviets are the only reason why the war in Europe was won. So no the Soviets were much more important than the Chinese. Though the Chinese were more important than the French who were equally important as the Polish. It can be argued that the Soviets are more important that the US and GB considering they pushed Germany back single-handledly. Alexysun (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

A word for Canada: Canada -- did a lot of fighting on land and sea--decisive in defeating the German U-boats. Canada provided lots of training for Allied airmen, plus lots of supplies and cash to Britain. The US spent an enormous amount of resources on making China the base for air attacks on Japan. Near zero results, but it drained resources away from Pacific and away from Britain and away from lend lease to USSR. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

USSR didn't need lend lease; this has already been debated. Also, what did Britain do to help the USSR except for the Battle of Britain? Sure, 1943, but North Africa and Sicily was not important to the Nazis. During 1941-June 1944, the Soviets were alone.

Secondly, tying down millions of Japanese isn't helpful?

Alexysun (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, what I meant to say was that capturing North Africa and Sicily did not help the USSR capture Stalingrad, Kursk, Rzhev, etc which was much much much more important to Victory in Europe (VE) Alexysun (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The Japanese army did not have too few soldiers in the Pacific--it had too many--and was unable to resupply them because US Navy focused on sinking freighter ships bringing supplies. The island-hopping US also bypassed most of the J-held islands. the J forces refused to surrender--most died of starvation or malnutrition. see Imperial Japanese Army during the Pacific War. Rjensen (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alexysun: USSR did need lend lease. It was extremely important and helpful. Thus, 50% of explosives were made from raw materials provided by the US.

However, the massive aid started to arrive from the US mostly in 1943-45, when the USSR had already won the pivotal battles (Moscow, Stalingrad).

Lend lease played no role in the USSR's survival at the first phase of the war, but it was very instrumental during the last phase. It saved several million people (both military and civilians), and allowed the USSR to capture Berlin in 1945 (I mean, without lend lease, that would have occurred not earlier than in 1946).

And, we need to keep in mind that not the USSR, but Britain was a recipient of lion's share of lend lease. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

They are the big three because they (in effect) ran the war. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

If we were to group the Allies into "tiers" (for lack of a better term) by strength/military contribution, it seems pretty undisputed to me that you could make three tiers: the superpowers, the other Allies considered major, and all of the remaining Allies after that.

• The United States, Soviet Union, and British Empire were superpowers at the time, hence the Big Three. No other state, including the Republic of China and the French Empire, could be considered superpowers.
• But France and China are clearly not in the same tier as everyone else, otherwise the UNSC would have three permanent members instead of five.
  • You can legitimately argue that France was not yet major in 1942, hence the Four Policemen and the original idea for the permanent UNSC excluding France. This changed when France directly helped to invade Germany and got itself an occupation zone.
• Finally, the reason why the remaining Allies don't go into the above tier is because the powers that created the UNSC didn't think they were major enough (otherwise there would have been more Policemen or more permanent seats or more occupation zones). Outside of permanent UNSC seats, the best/most objective argument I know of is that China is the only Allied power to have committed more troops than a Big Three member (in fact any one of the Big Three members).

Due to the three tiers, it seems like there's a dispute between whether the first two tiers should be grouped together or whether the last two should. The best argument I can come up with for the former is "the UNSC says so". The best argument I can come up with for the latter is "they weren't superpowers (at the time)". It feels like the former is stronger.

Zowayix001 (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree. The current structure of the infobox is very misleading: it creates a false impression that only three major powers were fighting the war, whereas other states were occupied by the Axis, and some other minor Allies provided an occasional help. In my opinion, this division gives an undue weight to a totally formal trait (a government in exile), and it places such important participants as France or Poland into the same category with Czech republic or Belgium (whose real contribution into the war was minimal).

Following your proposal, I think we should divide the Allies on three categories:

• The Big Three (UK, USSR, US)
• Major Allies (Poland, Yugoslavia, France (+Free France), China) (this list is tentative, and it can be narrowed/expanded other users will provide convincing arguments/sources).
• Other Allies

The Allies that had their government in exile can be marked with an asterisk, and the former Axis countries should be marked accordingly. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

And (for the next 16,000 years) we will have "but X was a major ally" based on number of troops or years in conflict or specific resources. How do we determine who was a major combatant? Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we will have disputes, but that situation is normal: we are already having disputes (see, e.g. the recent RfC. I doubt it is the last one).

The only way to avoid this type conflicts would be to use an alphabetical order (which would resolve all problems except one: a reader will be totally confused).

Yes, there will be disputes, but that is how Misplaced Pages works: it is not something frozen and permanent, it is a living organism.

I think we should agree on some threshold for inclusion into the second category. I think this criterion may be involvement in large scale hostilities in at least one theatre of war, and the total number of troops deployed should be > X thousands and during the period of time > Y months. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue with putting Poland, Yugoslavia, etc. in a group different from everyone below is that there's no objective cutoff point based on troop strength or other organizations. For example if Poland and Yugoslavia are the 6th and 7th largest contributors, why not also include the 8th? The only objective cutoff points are the 3rd largest (all superpowers), the 4th largest (all Policemen), and the 5th largest (all UNSC permanent seats).

"Alphabetical order" is a bit of an insincere argument; for example the Belligerents section of Western Front (World War II) lists combatants in order of troop strength/contribution, and there seems to be little dispute there. The dispute here is over the cutoff point, not the order.

My argument is that there is no objective, non-arbitrary threshold for inclusion into the above second category. Otherwise (from before), there would've been more Policemen or more permanent seats or more occupation zones. If there had been a sixth nation to commit more troops than even one of the P5, that would be an objective argument.

Stated differently, "a nation is a major ally if they were a superpower, or if they were strong enough to directly invade an Axis power, or if they committed more troops than a previously mentioned nation". No need to define an X and Y, or define how large "large scale hostilities" are.

Zowayix001 (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then let's merge tiers ##2&3.

That may be a good solution. I think the Western Front's approach is quite acceptable. We can arrange the Allies based on the amount of troops and, optionally, on duration of their participation in hostilities.

And I still believe the "Governments in exile" do not deserve a separate subgroup, a footnote of asterisk would be sufficient. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean France and China were both important parts of World War 2 and played significant roles Chiang Kai Shek was one of the main allied powers, The after WWII the french occupied one piece of Germany and one piece of Austria. As a matter of fact, there was a documentary film called "The Battle of China" which documents the Chinese struggle against the Japanese. the French played a sygnificant role as their land was annexed, they moved to Britain and became "Free France" and aligned their military to take on Germany, and like Britain, they declared war on Germany in 1939. In fact, "Free France" should also be in both the list of the principal allied powers and government in exile. Hellonature (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Why merge tiers 2 & 3? My whole post about the tiers is arguing that merging 1 & 2 is more natural. The last objective cutoff is at the 5th largest ally, not the 3rd. Zowayix001 (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand you.

I am not sure 5 is the objective cutoff. When we see "the Big Three", it is obvious what it means. However, if we speak about 5 allies, the situation is less obvious. Thus, I would say the role of Poland was comparable with that of France (the latter participated mostly during 1940 and 1945, and we should always remember about Vichy). And if we include Poland, why Canada or Yugoslavia is left beyond the scope? And so on, and so forth.

I think "5 Allies" concept is a projection of the UNO Security Council concept on the WWII history. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The Big Three, the Four Policemen, and the Permanent Five are all obvious. There's no equivalent for six or more.

France was powerful enough to directly occupy Germany and get itself a P5 seat. Poland, unfortunately, wasn't, and neither were Canada, Yugoslavia, etc.

If you really squint, you could say that Poland occupied pre-war Germany on the grounds of the Oder–Neisse line and East Prussia. Then you could exclude Canada, Yugoslavia, etc. on those grounds. Zowayix001 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We can look at it from two different perspectives. When we speak in terms of declarations, meetings and diplomatic agreements, then China or France may become important. However, when we are telling a story of the war, what this story is about? "Germany started a massive offensive ...", "US landed at ...", "British troops pushed the Axis back in ...", "The Red Army destroyed the group of Wehrmacht armies ...", "Japan captured the island ...." etc.

Actually, all important events (with a few exceptions, like Battle of France) involve the three Axis and the three Allied powers. For example, do can you name (without looking in Misplaced Pages or googling) at least two major battles where France or China played a primary role during 1941-45?

WWII was waged not at a negotiation table, but at the battlefield, and the Big three had done the lion's share of this job.

"France was powerful enough to directly occupy Germany and get itself a P5 seat" That was a huge de Gaulle's diplomatic success. France didn't get itself into it, it was invited to it (mostly due to British efforts, if I remember it correctly). Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course China played a primary role in every land-based battle in China in the Pacific theater. They literally committed more troops during the war than any one of the Big Three (even exceeding the number of Soviet troops on the Eastern front), which is something no other nation can say. Zowayix001 (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I support including China and France as the major allied countries in infobox. The judgment of whether a country is a major allied power should not be based on the editor's own standards. Everyone's standards are different, and this becomes a kind of original research that cannot be fair. The definition whether a country is a major allied should be based on whether it was recognized as such by the official documents at the time. Based on this, China and France should be included.If military contributions are the only consideration, then Italy should not be listed as a major Axis power on Misplaced Pages. Italy's military contribution is never on the same level as Germany and Japan. Italy even has an insurmountable gap compared to Germany or Japan. It surrendered and withdrew from the war in 1943, never independently lead a battlefield, and provided little military assistance to the Axis powers.Italy even provided less military assistance than Romania. For military perspective, Italy's value is even less than Romania or Finland.

For military perspective, Italy cannot be ranked as a major Axis power. However, Italy is undoubtedly listed as a major Axis power. If you look at the Axis powers page on Misplaced Pages, you will find that Italy is even ranked higher than Japan. Why is this? It's because of the Pact of Steel and the Tripartite Pact, which defined Italy's core Axis power status.

There is a similar example of the United States in World War 1. The US declared war in April 1917, and its main forces arrived on the European battlefield in May 1918. Germany would cease fire in November 1918, which means that the US only participated in the last six months of the 4 year 4 month war. However, the US is still considered a major belligerent in World War I. Why is that? It's because the Paris Peace Conference gave the US that status. The same is true for Japan in World War I. You can check the page of Allies of World War I, both Japan and the US are listed as major countries, even though Japan only fought in one battle. Moreover, from a military perspective, the UK's military contribution is not on the same level as the Soviet Union, but in this entry, the UK is still listed above the Soviet Union. Therefore, whether a country is a major allied nation in World War II is defined by official documents at the time, not by editors' own standards and preferences. Otherwise, you would be conducting original research.

Let's take a look at the official documents at that time. The United States joined the war in December 1941, and the first important official document after that is the Declaration by United Nations. Then the Declaration by United Nations directly defined the Allied Big Four, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China, as the four major allied powers. This was publicly announced to the world in the Declaration by United Nations. Do you think your own standards and definitions are more convincing or important than the Declaration by United Nations? Canada and Poland as mentioned above, two original signatories country, had never obtained the status of "the big four" in the Declaration by United Nations. How can you claim something like if we add China or France, then add Canada and Poland? Slatersteven have been emphasizing the "Big Three," but this is more of a definition by later historians. Moreover, if you mention the "Big Three," why do you ignore the "Big Four" mentioned in the Declaration by United Nations? Still that question, do you think you standard can be above the official documents like the Declaration by United Nations?

Even read the current history research book, you will read many support. The Oxford Companion to World War II states China rather than the UK as being the main US ally in the Pacific. Rana Mitter stated that China was "one of the four principle wartime Allies, alongside the US, Russia and Britain" in "China's War with Japan 1937-1945" Peter Harmsen's "Japan Runs Wild, 1942–1943" and "Asian Armageddon, 1944–45" (War in the Far East Book series) also claimed China was among the four major allies. Then similarity is Richard B. Frank's "Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War: July 1937-May 1942" take the same conclusion and claimed China was the central for allies' strategy in Pacific area.

Moreover, there were multiple documents at the time that granted China the status of one of the "the Allied Big Four". Let me ask you, which countries were the original signatories of the 'Potsdam Declaration? They were the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. The Soviet Union later joined as a signatory, and that was it. There were no others. Poland and Canada, which you mentioned earlier, do they qualify to be designated as one of the four major powers in the United Nations Declaration? Do they have the qualification to sign the Potsdam Declaration? And the interesting thing is, in Potsdam Declaration, China is ranked above the United Kingdom. Please read the original text of Potsdam Declaration,"We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war." ' Look, in Potsdam Declaration, China was placed ahead of the United Kingdom.I give you the link of Potsdam Declaration. You can read it. https://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html

Do you guys think your own standards and definitions are more convincing or important than the Declaration by United Nations or Potsdam Declaration?

Even when discussing the creation of the United Nations at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, only the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China participated. Poland and Canada, which you mentioned, were never eligible to participate in the discussion of the structure of the United Nations from start to finish. Furthermore, at the San Francisco Conference where the United Nations was established, these four countries still served as the rotating chair countries, and no others were eligible.

That is to say, the status of China and France was defined in various official documents at that time, and now you are trying to use your own standards and understanding to forcibly overturn these official documents. This is original research that violates Misplaced Pages's rules. Actually there were plenty of official documents that prove that they were among major allies. According to the spirit of Misplaced Pages, you should include these countries as majors. @JellyGamery: @Zowayix001: @Alexysun:@Aemilius Adolphin:Can you guys agree my opinion?-------------- Lijing1989 (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2023‎

Generally, we rely on the interpretations provided by reliable secondary sources because primary sources may be incomplete and, or, you are then relying on your original interpretation of that primary source, if not for what it said, then its significance. Whizz40 (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has never said that primary sources cannot be used. Both primary and secondary sources can be used as references. When using secondary sources, as you said, it is usually because the primary source is incomplete or someone has provided an original interpretation of the primary source. That is the case we use secondary source. Actually, primary sources are direct sources that can provide detailed information and raw data. Secondary sources, on the other hand, are extracted and interpreted from primary sources, and may sometimes contain misunderstandings and biases.

So, do these official documents from that era exist with incomplete or biased interpretations? The answer is no. Especially the United Nations Declaration, which specifically emphasizes the status of the four countries and clearly marks them as the "Big Four." In this case, how can you have a biased understanding or come up with an original interpretation? The "Big Four" are directly listed in the signature. There is no room for original interpretation or biased understanding.

For Potsdam Declaration,indeed, there is no room for biased or original interpretation of the Potsdam Declaration. This is because the first sentence of the declaration clearly states: "We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war." This opening statement clearly defines the three countries involved in the declaration and their leaders.Specifically, directly list the US, the UK and China with no others.You can debate the rank of these three but cannot delete one of them. Therefore, any attempt to interpret or understand the Potsdam Declaration in a biased or original way would be unfounded and inaccurate. These primary sources are described in very precise language. The language used in these official documents is very clear and specific. The descriptions and expressions in these documents are very clear and leave no room for ambiguity. Lijing1989 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on these, we can easily get the solution. Just put 5 principal countries in infobbox. Then set other countries as Other affiliated state combatants. We can solve this problem.@Zowayix001:Lijing1989 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That reflects the situation after the war, not during it. Whizz40 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

No,totally wrong. The United Nations Declaration was issued in January 1942, just two months after the United States entered the war. There was still more than three years until the end of the war. It is impossible to say that it was a response to the post-war situation. Let's take a look at what the United Nations Declaration is about. It states that no country can individually cease hostilities, and every government must use all resources to fight against the Axis powers.More specifically "(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government is at war.

(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies." Is there any part mention of post-war in this? All the content is about the obligation to fight against the Axis powers at the current time.

Conclusion: There are still over three years until the end of the war. All of the content pertains to the obligations that must be fulfilled during the war. If you say that this reflects the post-war situation, then that is entirely your own original research.

By forcibly claiming that this was a post-war document, you are denying the content of the official document itself. This is already a distorted original research. Lijing1989 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The Declaration by United Nations (or, more specifically, the Four Powers that signed it on January 1, 1942) reflected Roosevelt's vision of how things should shape up after the war; it didn't reflect the de facto situation during the war. This is why we need secondary sources, rather than debating the significance of the primary sources. Whizz40 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

No.you are just totally wrong again. This was what Roosevelt hoped for initially. However, the document was released when the signing countries reached a consensus. There will always be controversy at any time and over any issue. The most important thing is to see whether the document is accepted when it is officially released. Even in this page, we have so many debates. How much more so for a war to be discussed. However, when the document is officially released, it has legal effect and is a legal effect that all signing countries must recognize. If you believe that this official document does not have legal effect in the signing countries, then you are treating the allied countries as if they have no contractual spirit like Nazi Germany.

Note that the initial idea is just an idea, and initial non-acceptance is just that - initial. But once the document is released, it announces the final conclusion by all signing countries to the whole world and becomes a legal document announced to the world

By saying this, you probably don't understand the legal effect. Let me give you an example. In the Paris Peace Conference, Italy was once regarded as a secondary country by the other three countries, and its demands were rejected, and Italy was excluded from the key issues. This led to Italy even withdraw from the conference. According to this argument, Italy cannot even be considered a major Allied country, but in the end, Italy still obtained the status of one of the four powers of World War I. Why is this? Because Italy returned to the conference in the final stage of the Paris Peace Conference and signed the Treaty of Versailles as one of the four powers. This official document determined Italy's position. Even though Italy was initially excluded by three countries and even left the Paris Peace Conference in the middle, the final treaty determined Italy's status.

Similarly, there is also Italy in World War II. Italy was only regarded as the most important Axis ally by Germany at the beginning.And only Germany, Japan never consider Italy as an important ally. Then this was just Germany's initial idea. As the war progressed, Italy's military contribution was very low, even lower than Romania's, and it withdrew from the war in 1943. However, the initial signing of the Axis Pact as an official document announced Italy's status as a major Axis power to the world in legal terms. So, in fact, Italy did not play a very important role in the war, and it was only recognized as an ally initially approved by Germany, but it was still considered a major Axis power.

Even check the secondary source, you will read many support as I said before. The Oxford Companion to World War II states China rather than the UK as being the main US ally in the Pacific. Rana Mitter stated that China was "one of the four principle wartime Allies, alongside the US, Russia and Britain" in "China's War with Japan 1937-1945". Peter Harmsen's "Japan Runs Wild, 1942–1943" and "Asian Armageddon, 1944–45" (War in the Far East Book series) also claimed China was among the four major allies. Then similarity is Richard B. Frank's "Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War: July 1937-May 1942" take the same conclusion and claimed China was the central for allies' strategy in Pacific area. However, like I said before, there will always be controversy at any time and over any issue. The secondary source is also like this. You will see many different view. However, the primary source is the primary and will not be changed. The primary source material provides a clear and unambiguous description, and there is no controversy or dispute surrounding it. Additionally, the primary source material provides a direct and conclusive result.

Regardless of whether other countries initially accepted the four major powers' superior status, when they signed the United Nations Declaration, it represented their legal acceptance. When the document released, that means all the signing countries have declared to the world that they legally accept the superior status given to these countries in the documents. This is the result unanimously accepted by all signatory countries. Lijing1989 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I had a similar thought process of this, and you summed it up perfectly. So yes, I agree. JellyGamery (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it's one opinion, but every editor can express another, and so can ChatGPT. The Declaration by United Nations was written by Roosevelt and Churchill and signed by all the others. It was largely based on documents Churchill's government had already signed with the other European Allies and with the Soviet Union, as well as the Atlantic Charter. They were collecting allies on paper, but that didn't change the political, military, scientific and industrial situation on the ground which were all dominated by the Grand Alliance of the big three countries. Whizz40 (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

My personal take is that we should really be looking at how these powers were viewed at the time. People back then didn't have the ability nor the reason to be looking who and who wasn't "principal." If the United States, Soviet Union, Republic of China, United Kingdom, and France are all decided to be the security council, we can infer it is for good reason. JellyGamery (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

After the war, yes, that was the deliberated outcome. But that grouping doesn't accurately reflect the situation during the war. Whizz40 (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

----------Sure, it's one opinion, but every editor can express another, and so can ChatGPT.

Yeah,everyone can express others and have opinions. But when reach the conclusion, you should not use your orginal research as the line to determine the results which is not acceptable. Opinions are the opinions but the original research is unacceptable. Then the official documents are the official which will be always the primary sources and will not be considered as the original research.

-------------------They were collecting allies on paper, but that didn't change the political, military, scientific and industrial situation on the ground which were all dominated by the Grand Alliance of the big three countries.

The Declaration by United Nations clearly required every countries cannot be individually cease the war and every government should use all sources to support the war. It claimed everyone's duty in the war. It cannot change the industry power but it can define which countries are the major allies recognized by all signatory countries Lijing1989 (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like there is a consensus for this change. Whizz40 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Didn't you find it? All your conclusion which you reject the proposal are all based on what you think is. You think it is not true so you reject it by simply ignoring every primary sources without any own official sources.. Meanwhile, all my conclusion to support proposal are all based on the official documents that have been signed by over 20 countries and recognized by them. According to the rules of Misplaced Pages, what you are doing is called the original research which is not acceptable in wiki, while what I am doing is based on historical reference materials, the official materials.

If the reason for not reaching a consensus is because the dispute in different primary source, then it is acceptable. However,if the reason for not reaching a consensus is because is that someone simply disagrees by his own mind without any sources, regardless of the primary sources presented. He cannot refute the primary resources and also cannot find any loopholes in it.And are even unable to find any other official documents to deny the primary sources before. In this situation, he just deny the primary sources by his own opinions with his own original research. That means the only consensus can only achieve his own mind is satisfy no matter how many sources you offer. I think that is not acceptable in wiki. DO you think it's right? Lijing1989 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lijing1989: when you are selectively pinging several users, it is called canvassing. This is strongly discouraged by our rules. I understand that, being a new user, you may be unaware of many Misplaced Pages rules, but, please, never do that in future.

@Whizz40: there is a big difference between "no consensus" and "I disagree". We are not voting here, that is against our rules.

I think I know how could we resolve the dispute. We need to answer the question if the borderline between the "Big Three" and other Allies is more evident and more obvious than the border between the 5th member of the group of five powers and the 6th power.

Let's assume Britain was least powerful and least important member of the Big Three, and let's assume China goes after her in the list (in other words, her rank is 4). And now let's assume France is 5th, and Poland (or Yugoslavia, or Canada) is 6th.

Now my question is if France (in terms of her military contributions and political importance was significantly more important than Poland, and if this difference was significantly greater than the difference between the UK and China?

In other words, is the Five powers a really more obvious group than the Big Three?

That is not an idle curiosity. If the difference between France and the 6th Ally in the list is less evident, we may find ourselves in a situation when someone will start arguing that, e.g. Poland should be added to the Principal Powers list, and so on and so forth.

In my opinion, the Big Three is an obvious group of principal powers, and the 4th power in the list was much less important and significant, both militarily and politically. That makes the Big Three a natural choice. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What all you talk about is all "Let's assume....Let's assume.... if this difference was significantly greater than the difference between the UK and China? In my opinion, the Big Three is an obvious group of principal powers, and the 4th power in the list was much less"

Did you find that? All you talk about are based on your own assume and you think what it is much less.If I say "no, I don't think it is much less", do you plan to argue with me by your own assume and definition? Then why do you think your own assume and definition should be considered above the official documents or even ignoring the official documents?

Then I don't really understand how can you get the conclusion that "4th power in the list was much less important and significant", through compare the distance between 5th France and 6th Poland? Even you are true which I doubt, you can only get the conclusion that the 5th in the list was less important not the 4th by that comparison, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lijing1989 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, based on your assume, can you tell me whether the military contribution gap between Germany and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland? If that, why Italy is a major Axis power while Romania or Finland not? Italy surrendered and withdrew from the war in 1943 which is two years before the end of war, never independently lead a battlefield, and provided little military assistance to the Axis powers. Romania fight until 1945. The military contribution gap between Germany or Japan and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland. So why Italy is a major not Romania or Finland? The answer is the Pact of Steel defined that. Based on your method, Italy is impossible to become a major Axis.

Let's make things easier. Let me ask you some important questions? Are you an official documents? Are you a drafter of any official documents in ww2? No, then why I choose your assume above the official documents?

In the situation, the Declaration by United Nations defines the allied big four, why I select your assume not the official documents like Declaration by United Nations? I really don't understand that when there is an official documents like the Declaration by United Nations directly tell you these four countries are the big four, then we simply reject the documents and determine the conclusion by something like "I assume"

Tell me this at first Lijing1989 (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The borderline between 3rd and 4th is weaker than the borderline between 5th and 6th which is stronger; therefore we should use the 5th as the cutoff point. The reason the borderline between 3rd and 4th is weaker is because there exist formal groupings of both 3 and 4 (the Big Three and the Four Policemen), but there do not exist any formal groupings of 6.

In fact, there even exists an ordering where China is ahead of the Big Three: the ordering by number of troops committed. There is no ordering where a 6th place entity is ahead of any one of the Permanent Five.

Zowayix001 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see your evidences. Concretely, I would see what criteria did you use. In my opinion, the difference between the UK and China is much more obvious than the difference between Poland and France. Thus,

• Britain was actively participating in several theatres of war, and she played a key role in several of them. Britain was a key participant of all important Allied meetings, and her political role was even greater than her military contribution. Britain played an important role in military defeat of Italy and Germany, and British troops invaded German territory in 1945. In contrast, China was fighting only in other theatre of war, and her military efforts were by no means successful. Japanese troops were not defeated in China until Japan surrendered in September 1945. You may also read the Churchill's opinion of China.
• France was a major player only during a very short period. After that, she surrendered and, despite neutrality of Vichy, France provided Germany with significant assistance, and even was engaged in hostilities against the Allies. The military contribution of Free France was by no means significant until late 1944. Poland was an active player at the very beginning of the war (about a month, like France), but Poland never surrendered. Poland never collaborated with Germany, and Polish underground troops, and especially Polish military in Italy and Eastern front (200,000 Polish troops participated in the Battle of Berlin), participation of Poles in breakage of Enigma, etc. makes Poland nearly as significant as France.

Therefore, I conclude that, whereas the borderline between 3th and 4th is pretty obvious, the borderline between 5th and 6th is virtually non-existing. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert:From my first comments in this talk page, I feel like you don't want reply me anything and simply ignore my comments. When I posted my first long comment, I saw you were also commenting on the same topic at that time. This is the reason why I didn't @ you at that time. I thought you must see my comment at that time. However, you didn't reply to my comment, so I felt like you didn't want to respond to what I wrote.

Then this comment makes me feel even more like that. Because you seemed to have ignored my direct reply to you. In this situation, I don't know if I should write my response to you again and @ you. But you also said it's better not to @, so I'm confused.

Anyway, I decide to @ you and write again.

• Did you find that? All you talk about are based on your own assume and your personal standard.Then why do you think your own assume and definition should be considered above the official documents or even ignoring the official documents?
• Moreover, based on your assume, can you tell me whether the military contribution gap between Germany and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland? If that, why Italy is a major Axis power while Romania or Finland not? Italy surrendered and withdrew from the war in 1943 which is two years before the end of war, never independently lead a battlefield, and provided little military assistance to the Axis powers. Romania fight until 1945. The military contribution gap between Germany or Japan and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland. So why Italy is a major not Romania or Finland? The answer is the Pact of Steel defined that. Based on your method, Italy is impossible to become a major Axis.
• The similar case is about the United States in World War 1. The US declared war in April 1917, and its main forces arrived on the European battlefield in May 1918. Germany would cease fire in November 1918, which means that the US only participated in the last six months of the 4 year 4 month war. However, the US is still considered a major belligerent in World War I. Why is that? It's because the Paris Peace Conference gave the US that status. This is about ww1 so I don't require you consider this. However, the Italy'case is absolutely the case of ww2 and Italy would not be a major Axis based on your method to determine the borderline.
• By the way, China also fight on Burma not only on theater.
• Then I don't really understand how can you get the conclusion that "4th power in the list was much less important and significant", through compare the distance between 5th France and 6th Poland? Even assume you are right in this comparison which I doubt, you can only get the conclusion that the 5th in the list was less important not the 4th by that comparison, right?
• As you see above, the judgment of whether a country is a major allied power should not be based on the editor's own standards. Everyone's standards are different, and this becomes a kind of original research that cannot be fair. The definition whether a country is a major allied should be based on whether it was recognized as such by the official documents at the time.
• In the situation, the Declaration by United Nations defines the allied big four, why I select your assume not the official documents like Declaration by United Nations? I really don't understand that when there is an official documents like the Declaration by United Nations and Potsdam Declaration directly tell you these four countries are the big four, then we simply reject the documents and determine the conclusion by something like "I assume" or some editor's own standard.

Lijing1989 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I provided a link to WP:CANVASS, which contains clear instructions on correct usage of "@"s. It is quite ok to ping me, because I am already participating ion this discussion, and because your argument is a responce to my post. However, it would be unacceptable to selectively ping several users who (as you believe) may share your POV, whereas other users are left beyond teh scope.

WRT your question, official documents you are talking about are primary sources. Read WP:PSTS to learn when and how should these documents be used. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert:You did not answer my question here.

• The first question I asked you is about you used your own standard above the primary source. You are not currently comparing primary sources and secondary sources, but using your own set of standards to reject primary sources.
• The second is about the method you propose above to define the major. It has a big problem. Based on your method, can you tell me whether the military contribution gap between Germany and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland? If that, why Italy is a major Axis power while Romania or Finland not? Italy surrendered and withdrew from the war in 1943 which is two years before the end of war, never independently lead a battlefield, and provided little military assistance to the Axis powers. Romania fight until 1945. The military contribution gap between Germany or Japan and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland. So why Italy is a major not Romania or Finland? The answer is the Pact of Steel defined that. Based on your method, Italy is impossible to become a major Axis. This is one of the major questions but you never answered.
• Then the secondary sources are conflict with each others. However, the primary sources are consistent. When the primary sources like the Declaration by United Nations and Potsdam Declaration recognize the "Big Four " status, do you think that there is no secondary sources to prove that?c. Rana Mitter stated that China was "one of the four principle wartime Allies, alongside the US, Russia and Britain" in "China's War with Japan 1937-1945" Peter Harmsen's "Japan Runs Wild, 1942–1943" and "Asian Armageddon, 1944–45" (War in the Far East Book series) also claimed China was among the four major allies. Then similarity is Richard B. Frank's "Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War: July 1937-May 1942" take the same conclusion and claimed China was the central for allies' strategy in Pacific area. Even the secondary sources " America, Hitler and the UN: How the Allies Won World War II and Forged a Peace" by Plesch, Dan which Whizz40 use to reject the proposal has some support claim "He needed to plan with Roosevelt how to win the war in coordinate with Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek, the Chinese leader and smaller nations" "He". here refer Churchill. The sources Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek are deliberately distinguished from other "smaller nations". However, the source of Dan Plesch is not my secondary sources to support it. My secondary source are listed abover. You can find secondary source reject this but also I can find lots of secondary sources support this. From these, what I want to say it the secondary sources are conflict with each others because everyone has different views. I can find lots of secondary sources support the proposal either. However, the primary sources are consistent.

However, the primary sources were all support it.And the most important thing is can you answer my questions? Especially regarding the question about Italy, based on the your theory of military contribution gap. Lijing1989 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok.

• I do not insist on some specific standards. I proposed some criteria, and I applied them to make a "3rd vs 4th" and "5th vs 6th" comparison. If you disagree with these criteria, let's discuss it. And, yes, these criteria are not based on some specific source, because that type issues should be decided among us (per our policy).
• We are not discussing the Axis. The situation with the Axis was somewhat different. If you want to discuss the Axis, feel free to do it on The Axis talk page.
• It is ok that secondary sources disagree. WP:NPOV specifically addresses this type situations. I don't see any mention of four principal Allies in the Declaration by United Nations. In addition, Potsdam Declaration dealt specifically with one theatre of War (Pacific War). Yse, China was one of the major participants of this theatre, but it was not the whole war, just a part of it.

Paul Siebert (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Answer one by one:

• ------------------------I applied them to make a "3rd vs 4th" and "5th vs 6th" comparison. If you disagree with these criteria, let's discuss it.

I am not agree or disagree here. I just say it is logic error. "3rd vs 4th" and "5th vs 6th", then you tell me the gap between "3rd vs 4th" is much larger than gap between "5th vs 6th". And get conclusion the fourth should be out? Don't you find it is logic mistake? When you find the gap between 5th v 6th is too small comparing 3rd v 4th. That just means 5th is out based on your logic.However, you get conclusion that 4th is out. Don't you think it is logic error? And personally I think 5 v 6 has big gap so I doubt your claim but at first you should correct your logic mistake.

• ------------------------We are not discussing the Axis. The situation with the Axis was somewhat different.

Axis is different. Wow, interesting. You know we talk about the same war, right? You even ask others "all important events involve the three Axis and the three Allied powers." in this discussion. I don't need to discuss the Axis. I mean, when you find that your criteria and methods of judgment are completely inapplicable to the other side （the Axis） of the same war, why do you think your methods are correct in this side(the Allies)? We are not discussing the Axis but discussing whether you method to determine the major player is a fair and appropriate approach. Then we find your method is even inapplicable in the other side of the same war and inapplicable in every war including Word War 1, Napoleonic Wars and so on. That means you invented a method of distinction specifically for this proposal, which is not suitable for any war, just to achieve your proposal. Do you think it is convincing?

• -------------------------It is ok that secondary sources disagree.

Based on your link, I don't see any rejection my sources here. It seems you should list both claim from each sources in this situation. Based on this claim, shouldn't we add China and France to the the infobox list to include all sources' claim. I didn't see any sources put Poland as a major so 5 countries will include all sources. Then the Declaration by United Nations signed on 1 January 1942 by four countries "the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China". Then next day (2 January 1942 ), 22 countries add their signature. I think you should know what does the "add their signature" means. That means, the Declaration by United Nations was original only signed by just four countries (On others). Others add their signature after the declaration signed. Right? By the way, every countries signed the declaration by alphabet order except that four contries. Maybe this still may not be acceptable to you. Since it is the Declaration of the United Nations, let me give you the wording from the official United Nations to describe this declaration "twenty-six States at war with the Axis Powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), subscribed to the common" Specifically emphasize these four countries and leave out others.

You say Potsdam declaration is about pacific theater. Then what do you think about"JOINT FOUR-NATION DECLARATION" signed by the Soviet Union, the United States, China and the Unite Kingdom? Do you think it is still a documents just for pacific theater? "1. That their united action, pledged for the prosecution of the war against their respective enemies, will be continued for the organization and maintenance of peace and security.

2. That those of them at war with a common enemy will act together in all matters relating to the surrender and disarmament of that enemy.

3. That they will take all measures deemed by them to be necessary to provide against any violation of the terms imposed upon the enemy"

It is impossible a document only about pacific, right?

Don't tell me something like it is a post-war document. It signed on 1943 which the war still have two years. The problem is there are two many official documents to emphasize the "Big Four". Even you claim dismiss one or two of them by reason like "this is for pacific theater", we can easily find another official document which acknowledged the big four Lijing1989 (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Don't you think it is logic error?" I think you don't understand what I am writing. If a difference between n-th and (n+1)th member of some sequence is much bigger than the difference between m-th and (m+1)th ones, the former is a more natural threshold for inclusion.
• "Axis is different." Yes, it is different. It has its own article, and that article is organized according another set of sources.
• You again are speculating based on various official documents and treaties.

Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Answer one by one.

• -------------------I think you don't understand what I am writing. If a difference between n-th and (n+1)th member of some sequence is much bigger than the difference between m-th and (m+1)th ones,

No.I understand what you are writing and find it's logic error. That means your writing cannot get your conclusion. From what you said, even assume you are right, I can only get the 5th should be out of the list not the 4th China. If the difference between 3rd v 4th is much larger than 5th v 6th, you can only get the conclusion to remove 5th. For the 4th, you should compare the gap between 3rd v 4th and the gap between 4th v 5th which you never did before. That is why I emphasize your logic error. Because based on your logic (or derivation process depend on how you define), the only conclusion is we should remove the 5th and it is nothing to do with the 4th. So tell me how did you remove the 4th from the list.

• -------------------Yes, it is different. It has its own article, and that article is organized according another set of sources.

You really don't understand what I am writing. It is not about which article and sources. It is to determine whether your statement, method or borderline is persuadable to research a consensus to solve this problem. From your statement, you're just immersed in your own world and don't want to persuade others. If you want others to accept your statement or borderline, you must prove your method or borderline applicable and reasonable so that you can persuade us to achieve consensus. But now, it seems you don't want to persuade us your method is reasonable to achieve consensus and just force us to accept your method or borderline.

Why do I make example of Italy. It is because it proves your statement and the way to make borderline is unreasonable and inapplicable for every war topic. It is even not applicable or reasonable in this World War 2 topic. And How can you persuade others to accept such an unreasonable way to make borderline (As I proved above, this way is unreasonable in every war topic)? If your statement is such unreasonable and is not convincing, how can you make other reach the consensus? Hence, I said you invented a personal method to determine the borderline just for this proposal, which is not suitable for any war, just to achieve your proposal and force others to accept without any reason. Moreover, if you method to determine the borderline is unreasonable and inapplicable for every war topic, don't you think your borderline is totally your personal original research which is not accept in wiki

• -------------------You again are speculating based on various official documents and treaties.

You doubt the United Nations Declaration, so let I explain how the United Nations Declaration defines the Big Four.

You doubt the Potsdam Declaration is only about pacific so I tell you there are JOINT FOUR-NATION DECLARATION and so many other official documents.

What I do is just answer your question. If you don't doubt these official documents, I will not waste time to list these documents again. Ok, if you want some new conclusions. then the conclusions is secondary sources conflict each others and the primary sources are consistent. And all official documents recognize the Big Four. I really don't want list them if you don't doubt or ask me these. Even For the secondary source, I have list a tons. Do I need to repeat it again?

"""Rana Mitter stated that China was "one of the four principle wartime Allies, alongside the US, Russia and Britain" in "China's War with Japan 1937-1945" Peter Harmsen's "Japan Runs Wild, 1942–1943" and "Asian Armageddon, 1944–45" (War in the Far East Book series) also claimed China was among the four major allies. Then similarity is Richard B. Frank's "Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War: July 1937-May 1942" take the same conclusion and claimed China was the central for allies' strategy in Pacific area. Even the secondary sources " America, Hitler and the UN: How the Allies Won World War II and Forged a Peace" by Plesch, Dan which Whizz40 use to reject the proposal has some support claim "He needed to plan with Roosevelt how to win the war in coordinate with Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek, the Chinese leader and smaller nations" "He". here refer Churchill. The sources Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek are deliberately distinguished from other "smaller nations"" The Cambridge History of the Second World War Volume 2: Politics and Ideology explained why the Allies defeated the Axis, stating like "As historians has long understood, Germany, Japan and Italy were economic featherweights compared to the industrial might and human resources of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, the United States and China" The Cambridge History of the Second World War is another secondary source to support the proposal"If you want, I can list much more sources.

By the way, the sources I list are even newer than other sources in this discussion. Their publish time are closer to now. That means the sources I have used are more in line with current research.

All by all, when all the primary official documents support the proposal and many secondary sources also support, why do we use your method which are proved unreasonable and inapplicable for every war topic to determine the borderline instead of these official documents? Moreover, your method can be considered as an original researchLijing1989 (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I need to @ the editor I replied. I don't know whether you read my reply so I @Paul Siebert you Lijing1989 (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• When we using an "n-th"/"m-th" notation, our conclusions are equally applicable to any member of the sequence.
• And you don't understand what I am writing. This article and "The Axis" article may be organized differently, and Misplaced Pages is not a source for itself. (per our policy).
• The question if not if the term "Big Four" ("Four Policemen") is used by secondary sources, but if this concept is more notable than the Big Three. I checked, the latter is found more frequently in recent literature.

Paul Siebert (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Reply one by one:

• ---------------When we using an "n-th"/"m-th" notation, our conclusions are equally applicable to any member of the sequence.

No that is not logic. If conclusions are equally applicable to any member of the sequence by using an "n-th"/"m-th" notation, then you can also claim the 3rd British is applicable in this sequence which can also be out of this list by that logic.

Assume you are right which I doubt. Your only compare the gap between 3rd v 4th and 5th v 6th and never compare the gap between 4th v 5th and 5th v 6th so you can only get the 5th is out from your conclusion. If you want to remove 4th in the list, you should at first compare the gap between 4th v 5th and 5th v 6th.That is the basic logic.

• -------------------------And you don't understand what I am writing. This article and "The Axis" article may be organized differently, and Misplaced Pages is not a source for itself. (per our policy).

It seems there is huge difficult for you to understand others' reply. Please don't deliberately distort my statements again. You misrepresent my statements too many times.

Let me talk to you again. I am not talking about the Axis article. I am talking about whether your method to determine the borderline is appropriate and reasonable. You propose a method to determine the info borderline. The method is totally invented by you not even wiki itself. You even state like "I think I know how could we resolve the dispute. . We need to answer the question......" This paragraph you proposed a your own method and tried to use this method to persuade us. What I think is if your method is appropriate and reasonable, then we can accept and the dispute is solved. Because this method is not even a wiki method nor from any sources. Then I checked the methods and find it is not appropriate in any war article not only wiki article but also not appropriate in any historic source. The axis article is just what I use to prove your personal method is really not appropriate. You said "Misplaced Pages is not a source for itself." The problem is your method is not a source either, and is even a original research by you which is not appropriate in any article both wiki and historical secondary or primary sources.

• ---------------------The question if not if the term "Big Four" ("Four Policemen") is used by secondary sources, but if this concept is more notable

The problem is big four is also notable. France as major is also notable. The primary sources are consistent support this claim and lots of secondary sources support it which make it also notable. I even check two sources of Whizz40 offered to reject the proposal but both two support the big four. Lijing1989 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I wonder whether I need to @the editor when I reply his comments. @Paul Siebert Lijing1989 (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert As I said below, I wrote long reply to you and please don't ignore them. And we continue here so we will not mix and make the discussion more confusing. I don't want to spend long time to write this long reply again. Lijing1989 (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Before we continue, try to re-read my previous replies. They already contain all answers to your questions. It seems you do not understand what I am saying. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I have the same feeling as you, but in the totally opposite direction. In fact, I have carefully read all your responses and answered all your questions and viewpoints one by one. However, I feel like you completely misunderstood my responses or maybe ignored them, and jumped to another totally different topic. Then I have no choice but replied the new topic you jumped. Then again, you repeated this process，misunderstood or ignored my reply and jumped to a new topic again. Every time I replied to one of your viewpoints, you ignored my response and jumped directly to the next topic, causing the entire discussion to constantly jump from one topic to another.

Considering that this is a kind of wasting energy,after thinking about it, I decided that we should solve one problem at a time based on your viewpoint, then continue to the next problem of your viewpoint, until all problem are discussed thoroughly，in order to avoid wasting energy.

First, we need to discuss your first viewpoint, which is the method you invented to judge the borderline of major allies. We need to determine whether it is reasonable, appropriate, and applicable for discussion on Misplaced Pages. This method can be considered your original research, and if you want to convince other editors using this method, it must be reasonable and appropriate.

Then your method is based on the military contribution. More specifically, compare the military contribution gap between 3rd/4th and the gap 5th/6th to decide the borderline. However, this method at first is your personal method which is not support by any research. It can be considered as a original research. Then moreover, it is not appropriate in any wiki war article. As I said above, by this method, the major axis would not have Italy and the major allies of world war 1 would not have the United States. Note, we are not talking about whether another wiki article can be source of wiki,which it is definitely not,we are talking about whether your personal method which is an original research is accepted as a borderline in wiki. Actually, I don't need to make any example like Italy and just simply tell you that your method is an original research and is not acceptable by wiki. However, I want to have more friendly, rational, and persuasive discussions so I tried to tell you why your method is not acceptable， where it is not appropriate.And that is the reason I make an example of Italy. However, you simply ignored these just jumped to the topic that whether a wiki article can be a source of wiki which is totally not what I am talking about. If you will always jumped topic like I mentioned above, then I will give up to make an example or use a appropriate way to tell why your method is unreasonable, and simply tell you that your method is your personal research which is not acceptable.

By the way, you just compare the gap between 3rd/4th and 5th/6th to remove 4th is unreasonable and a logic error. If you want to remove 4th, you should compare the gap between 3rd/4th and 4th/5th which you never did.

This is your first viewpoint. If you accept your method is not appropriate, then we can continue to your next point. Or you can explain your method more detailed and tell me why it is reasonable. Lijing1989 (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should focus on one problem first.

I disagree with your argument about original research. WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages, so your point is irrelevant.

Your reference to Italy and to the Axis in general is irrelevant either, because the Axis is a more simple and straightforward case: it is broadly accepted that the primary Axis members were the three powers: Italy, Germany and Japan, which formalized their relationships initially in the Pact of Steel and Anti-Comintern pact, and later in a full scale military alliance. Therefore, we don't need any additional criteria.

The situation with the Allies is much more complicated (I am not going to reproduce all what has already been said on that account, just look at previous discussions here and on the WWII talk page). Unlike the Axis, which was some formal alliance between the three major powers, which was joined later by some other minor members (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and few others, and by Finland, which signed a treaty with Germany only), the Allies was not an alliance between few core powers, which was joined later by other states. In reality, the full scale alliance ("United Nations") was formalized long after the main Allies became involved in full scale hostilities against the Axis, and it included almost all Allies.

That makes the situation different from the situation with the Axis, and that is why we need to develop/choose some approach to select the core Allies.

Just to avoid misunderstanding, I am not happy with the current state of the infobox. As I already proposed, the infobox should be a ranked list of Allies. The Big Three should go first (in a chronological order, similar to what we have now), followed by China, France (The Third Republic + Free France), Poland etc. I don't support the idea to keep the Allies with government in exile as a separate category (a footnote would be sufficient).

However, although China should be at the 4th position, the Big Three must be kept. There are several additional arguments in support of that, but I would prefer to discuss it later.

I am currently busy, so I am not sure I will be able to respond before 12th of June. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Zowayix001:I can accept your borderline. There are lots of official documents that recognize China as one of the Big Four. Then there are two official documents that recognize France as one of major. Hence, Based on these official documents, I support this borderline. Lijing1989 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Some sources:

• "With the text finalized by the Big Three, the Chinese were invited to sign, and then the other Allies."
• "Although many factors manifestly contributed to the ultimately victory, not least the Soviet Union's joining of the coalition, the coalition partners ability to orchestrate their efforts and coordinate the many elements of modern warfare successfully must rank high in any assessment."
• "In World War II, the three great Allied powers—Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union—formed a Grand Alliance that was the key to victory."

We need to rely on secondary sources for the significance of primary sources and due weight in the articles. Whizz40 (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You said you needed to rely on secondary sources you offered so I think you believe the source you listed right? But it seems you did not read your sources carefully. If you really read them, you will not reject the proposal. The sources you listed itself support the proposal here.

Let me see what your sources talked about.

• --------------------------------------------------In World War II, the three great Allied powers—Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union—formed a Grand Alliance

This claim is from the sources The National WWII Museum New Orleans. But this sentences is from big three in the this source and you probably only search the big three in the National WWII Museum New Orleans. However, the Big three is big three. Principal Allied is principal allied. They are not equal. The main Allied powers are not only the Big Three, but also include countries beyond the Big Three which at least the source you offered from the National WWII Museum New Orleans believed.

Let me check how National WWII Museum New Orleans, which you listed as the sources and believed, defined the main allied powers.

"The main Allied powers were Great Britain, The United States, China, and the Soviet Union. ......... The main Axis powers were Germany, Japan and Italy."

This is not my source even though I have lots of both secondary and primary sources to support the proposal but I think you probably not like others' sources so I choose to directly copy your source (not representing but directly copy one by one). The similar source will include Encyclopædia Britannic which add both China and France as the main allied powers stating "The principal members of the Allies were the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States, and China (the “Big Four”), as well as France while it was unoccupied. "

• --------------------With the text finalized by the Big Three, the Chinese were invited to sign, and then the other Allies

This is another source you offered and believed. This claim is from the book "America, Hitler and the UN: How the Allies Won World War II and Forged a Peace". But again, probably you did not read much about the book. Let me check how this book defined the allied strategy. It claimed "The previous day, they had been preparing an international political that would unite them with Soviet Union,China and many other nations as possible against the Axis powers led by Germany, Italy and Japan". This describe how the Declaration by United Nations was drafted which to unite them (UK and US) with the Soviet Union and China, group them and separate with "other nations" in this book. When the book described the United Nations, it claimed ""It was at this meeting that the four powers -Britain, China, the Soviet Union and the USA - formally proposed that the United Nations alliance create global security organization""Then this book describe the grand strategy of Allied powers, it claimed "He needed to plan with Roosevelt how to win the war in coordinate with Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek, the Chinese leader and smaller nations" "He". here refer Churchill. Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek are deliberately distinguished from other "smaller nations" in this book. This book also claimed "

You said you relied on the secondary sources and your secondary sources all support the big four including China as the main allied powers. I don't even need to list my sources because your sources support too.

Actually, I personally can list a tons secondary sources which support China and France as main allied. The books writing by Richard B. Frank, Rana Mitter, Peter Harmsen and Spencer C. Tucker all support the big four (the UK, the Soviet Union, the US and China) as the main allied powers. Then "The Cambridge History of the Second World War. Volume 1, Fighting the War" even list both China and France as the main allied powers. The Cambridge History of the Second World War Volume 2: Politics and Ideology explained why the Allies defeated the Axis, stating like "As historians has long understood, Germany, Japan and Italy were economic featherweights compared to the industrial might and human resources of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, the United States and China"Lijing1989 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The question is not if there are sources that name China or France as the main Allied powers. The question is how many sources say otherwise. If you look at this (I deliberately made the scope wide, because some sources, mostly American, use "world war II", whereas others, mostly British, prefer "Second World War", so by selecting "World War II" you get a biased sample), you may find that some sources list USA, UK, USSR and France (but not China), some sources list USA, UK, USSR and China (but not France), some sources explicitly separate China from the main allied powers (e.g. " this seeming affinity between the KMT and the main Allied powers"), but there is one invariant in all sources: the Big Three. No sources exist that exclude the US, the UK, and the USSR from the list of the main Allied powers. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This paragraph is my response to Whizz40. I have a specific reply to your comment and I even mentioned you by @ in that reply. Can you please reply there instead of making the discussion more confusing? Can we not mix the discussion between you and me with the discussion between Whizz40 and me together? It will make this discussion even more confusing. Moreover, when you mix the discussion between you and me with the discussion between Whizz40 and me, you completely ignore my long reply to you, and this wastes the time I spent writing the reply. It will make us even harder to reach a consensus and will only make the discussion more confusing. Let's take it step by step, clarify one topic, and then move on to another. The core of disagreement between I and you is about whether your way or the method your proposal of judging the major allies is reasonable and appropriate. As for the secondary sources, that was a disagreement between me and Whizz40, Here is the discussion I will do to whizz40. Once I have resolved this disagreement with him, I will naturally turn back to you to continue this problem. For our discussion, please continue in that place and don\t ignore my reply to you. Actually, I have already answered your points and questions that your concern and write here in that long reply to you where I @ you above. If you did not ignore them and jumped directly here, that is what you should have seen. .

I will @you again in that reply and please continue our discussion in that place where I replied you specifically. Moreover, don't ignore my comments replied you again. Do you know how long it took me to write that reply to you? Please respect my reply and time to write the reply. Lijing1989 (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Its time for an RFC, with short simple statements laying out the arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is the only way we're going to agree on something. JellyGamery (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

1. Plesch, Dan (2010-12-14). America, Hitler and the UN: How the Allies Won World War II and Forged a Peace. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85773-049-7.
2. Johnsen, William T. (13 September 2016). The Origins of the Grand Alliance: Anglo-American Military Collaboration from the Panay Incident to Pearl Harbor. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-6836-4.
3. "The Big Three". The National WWII Museum New Orleans. Retrieved 4 April 2021.
4. "Allies and Axis: Who's Who in WWII?". The National WWII Museum New Orleans. Retrieved 27 May 2021.
5. "Allied powers". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 27 May 2021.

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