Talk:Allies of World War II

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grant65 (talk | contribs) at 04:07, 10 September 2005 (→pre-1939). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:07, 10 September 2005 by Grant65 (talk | contribs) (→pre-1939)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Oslo Group

The Oslo Gorup needs to be included somewhere, because five of the six member were belligerent powers from the very early days of the War (see comment Talk:Allies#Oslo_Group. Their participation did not begin with the UNO. And their involvement was certainly more extensive than most UNO allies listed, seeing the War was fought on thier territories. Nobs01 21:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Have another look at the article. They are in their their rightful place, after the Commonwealth countries.Grant65 (Talk) 08:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

Finland

Please present evidence Finland can be considered an "informal ally". Nobs01 21:50, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I never said that it was.Grant65 (Talk) 08:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I did say that it was. Because Finland was assisted by the Allies initially.Grant65 (Talk) 01:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Finland is gonna be a very odd subject to deal with, that's primarily why I listed the entire Oslo group. Also, Denmark (and Norway) is something of an embarassment too, because of the large number of personnel that served in various Wehrmacht and SS formations, even if the Danish government cannot be considered an Axis ally. Nobs01 01:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Finland is striking, as the only democracy to have joined the Axis, but the peculiar historical reasons for this are well-known. I don't think it's appropriate to discuss contributions to Axis forces in this article, especially as there were some from every Allied country (e.g. the British Free Corps). Grant65 (Talk) 12:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sweden

Question:

Under neutrality rules, a neutral must intern hostile troops which cross border. During the Second World War the Swedish Government permitted Germany to transship its troops across Swedish territory to carry on the war against the Soviet Union. By the time the program ended in August, 1943, 2,140,000 German soldiers had transited Swedish rail lines. Was this a violation of Hague V? If so, why did Sweden permit Germany to ship those troops across its neutral territory? Nobs01 15:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think there was an official pretence that the passengers were not combat personnel. There was, of course, the thinly-veiled threat of Nazi invasion if Sweden had refused. Switzerland also allowed the transit of German personnel and equipment to and from Italy under similar circumstances.Grant65 (Talk) 01:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

USSR

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

USSR never participated in anti-comintern pact and nither declared war on Poland in 1941 (but protected some areas of Ukraine and Belorussia, earlier annexed by Poland, from Nazis). USSR occupied this area only when Polish government ended resistance to Germans and left the country. Polish goverment ordered not to resist the USSR army.

Also USSR participated in Spanish civil war AGAINST Germany and Italy.

In fact, before 1941 USSR was neutral according to the international law.--Nixer 07:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union invaded Poland with Nazi Germany in September 1939.

It is not true that:

USSR protected some areas from the Nazis: they had Nazi-Soviet pact signed just in the end of August 1939 that shared the "zones of influence", just before both countries invaded Poland.

But this does not make USSR a military ally of Germany. --Nixer 07:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Poland never asked Soviets to invade the country. --Wojsyl 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

USSR occupied this area only when Polish government ended resistance to Germans and left the country: the Soviets invaded Poland 10 days before Warsaw capitulated to the Nazis.

--Wojsyl 19:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Polish government escaped from the country, leaving the city facing Nazis. Remember that USSR always proposed the Poles protection against Nazis before the war, but they always regused --Nixer 07:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Where do you invent all these things from ? --Wojsyl 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an ABC.

This document here "League of Nations Expulsion of the the USSR" should put to rest claims of (1) Soviet "neutralitiy" prior to 1941, and (2) claims the USSR did not engage in a War of Aggression, i.e. Crimes Against Peace. nobs 21:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Ligue of nations was an anti-Soviet organization, many years they refused the USSR with its membership. This organization was made by Entente countries - the countries that invaded Russia after the revolution.

And, at the end, they excluded USSR NOT for Polish events, but protecting Finland - a country with highly anti-Soviet, reactionist and pro-fascist regime, a (future) member of Hitler's anti-Comintern pact.

We should keep 'de jure' position - all other is a propaganda. - USSR was de jure neutral, in spite of the fact that it participated in wars in Spain and Finland AGAINST pro-fascist regimes.--Nixer 07:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Since when do you call invasion - "protecting" ?

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

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

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

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

Since when do you call invasion - "protecting" ? That's beautiful. How could possibly Soviets be neutral if they attacked Poland and then (without even declaring war) and then other countries as well ? --Wojsyl 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

USSR was expelled because of the League's psychic ability to foresee Finland joining the Anti-Comintern Pact. What flawless logic! nobs 18:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Polish partisans?

Please read the material in your own references, User:Nixer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balcer 18:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Sorry Nixer, you're trolling now. --Wojsyl 19:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

From some random references I found via Google on the web, Poland did consider itself to be in a state of war with USSR between September, 1939 and the summer of 1941. However, no formal declaration of war was ever proclaimed. Around September 17, 1939 the Polish goverment was in flight and too disorganised to declare war. When it reformed itself in France later in the fall, the pressure of France and Britain prevented Poland from formally declaring war. Please, if anyone has a good link in English that deals with this, please post it here. Balcer 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

One can imagine if one's country is invaded one whould consider themself at war. One can also imagine, if one's counrty is invaded, a formal declaration of war against the aggressor is not a requirement or necessary. 198.133.178.17 21:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Still, that is what is usually done. That's what the US did after Pearl Harbor (text of resolution here). The fact that Poland did not formally declare war left its position ambiguous. Some historians argue it was a significant mistake, as it seemed to have legitimised Soviet Union's claim that its invasion of Poland was not an act of war. At the same time, there would have been little point declaring war alone without France and Britain. Balcer 22:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean it may have legitimized FDR & Churchill for selling them down the river? nobs 22:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If you mean that it may have made it easier for them to do it, yes. Still, such a declaration would have been symbolic anyway and in the end could not have mattered that much. The fact was that there was no way the West would start World War III to fight for the freedom of Eastern Europe and Stalin knew that very well and acted accordingly. Balcer 23:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

We should keep 'de jure' position - all other is a propaganda. - USSR was de jure neutral, in spite of the fact that it participated in wars in Spain, Finland and Japan AGAINST pro-fascist regimes.

Note, that Poland was a pro-fascist state before German invasion, there were enabled anti-semitic laws and anti-semitic propaganda in Poland. Some Jews even said that it was more comfortable for them to live in Germany than in Poland at that time.--Nixer 07:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Poland had some strong anti-semitic parties in the 1930-s but that has nothing to do with being fascist and certainly nothing with Nazi and Soviet invasion in September 1939. You're trolling again. --Wojsyl 07:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not about parties, I am about laws. And as you know, all Jewish and Ukrainian population in Warsaw were killed during the Warsaw uspring, even those who survived Nazis. --Nixer

All Jewish and Ukrainian population in Warsaw was killed in Warsaw Uprising ? I'm sorry, this is complete bulshit. I don't even know how to comment this. --Wojsyl 08:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

But the matter is that the USSR participated in wars with Finland, fascist regime in Spain and Japan - all German allies - and Poland only - not German ally. So why you call USSR a German ally?--Nixer 08:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe because of the secret protocol to Ribbentrop-Molotov pact that sanctioned the invasion of both aggressors ? --Wojsyl 08:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This gallery might be relevant to our discussion. Balcer 12:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the preamble of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact:

_____

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

_____

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

_____

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why dont you call China ally of Axis? Germany helped China at early stages of war with Japan.--Nixer 09:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Even in WWI page USA is not called an ally in spite of the fact that they fully participated in war with Germany because they did not have an official treaty of alliance with the Entente. But you CALL USSR an ally of Germany, without any official alliance too.

Why dont call Poland a German ally because it occupied a part of Chechoslovakia?

USSR NEVER been a German alley, NOT de jure, NOT de facto. --Nixer 09:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Gentlemen. This article is about the Allies. The operations of the Non-Alignment Pact and the carving-up of Eastern Europe should be dealt with in the appropriate articles. Thank you. Grant65 (Talk) 15:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed tag

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

As I've said above, the article is about the Allies of WW2, not the operations of the Non-Alignment Pact, or the carving-up of central Europe in 1936-41. Those matters should only be dealt with at length in other articles and I will personally delete any irrelevant and/or ideological/nationalistic material. By the way, military cooperation between the USSR and Germany went back to the early 1920s, when the Weimar Republic formed a relationship with the Bolsheviks, to get around the restrictions placed on the German military by the Treaty of Versailles. Grant65 (Talk) 00:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

First, thank you for your neutral and useful edits. As you know, many countries cooperated and traded with Germany: Poland (before 1939), USA (officially up to 1941, non-officially even later, for instance, Nazi used IBM machines to calculate their victims), Sweden (Nazi used Swedish bombs in bombings of London and Amsterdam), China (up to 1939), Turkey, Spain, Iran, many South-American countries. But we do not call them German allies. So, if to mention collaboration between USSR and Germany, we should mension cooperation between all these countries and Germany also.--Nixer 00:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The undeniable fact remains that the Soviet Union, through its supplies of oil and raw materials to Hitler's regime, faciliated its conquest of much of Western Europe. This was a catastrophic decision, as of course right after conquering France and thus securing the Western front Hitler turned against the Soviet Union. The Soviets were strong enough to simply refuse to trade with or cooperate economically in any other way with Germany (as opposed to Sweden or Switzerland), and yet they did it enthusiastically. Even Nixer admits that this policy of Stalin was a blunder. Balcer 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the classic case of hindsight. The idea that the whole world shouldn't have had trade relations with a nation of 60 million people, which was at the time, and is today, the economic heart & powerhouse of Europe, is ludicrous. Also, it's the classic case of calling all Germans "Nazis". Also, it's the classic case of imaginary psychic powers, that in 1939, 1940, and 1941, any person, corporation, or government that had any trade relationship with Germans (read "Nazis"), failing to use thier psychic powers, should have foreseen genocide and the holocaust. Also, it fails to take into consideration that Hitler justified genocide as a "conspiracy of International finance", i.e. international boycotts against trade with Germany. We have a parellal today with trade with China. It is a murderous regime, which has built its power by terror. Yet the idea that 1/4 of the planet's population can be isolated from international trade is likewise ludicrous, not without harmful effects to the people who refuse to trade with them. I would suggest a discussion like this be a little more qualified by economic realities, rather than this pretense to moral superiority that always seems to pervade these issues. nobs 03:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well put Nobs. Grant65 (Talk) 12:42, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

The sad fact is that even the most evil of rulers believe in their own minds that their actions are good and praiseworthy, or at the very least "justified". Very few people are consciously evil. They usually invent for themselves one kind of justification or another. The fiction of being a "neutral" country while supporting economically Hitler's conquests was one of those justifications. In short, the standard "it was all right, because the people at the time thought it was all right" is quite simply not a sufficient guideline for good historical analysis. Balcer 17:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right. So may be we should start a new article about cooperation of neutral (and even enemy) states and international organizations (Red Cross, Holy See for instance) with Nazi regime and violations of neutrality?--Nixer 18:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion about foreign trade belongs to this article. It was perfectly all right for Soviet Russia to supply Hitler with whatever they wanted. However, pretending that they were not allied in the beginning of WW2 on the ground that the "secret protocol" was secret, makes this article highly POV biased as I explained before. I don't think that revert warring will lead us anywhere, especially that Nixer notorioulsy ignores 3RR. I'm therefore restoring the accuracy tag. --Wojsyl 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary

Nixer insists on not mentioning that Soviet Union was initially allied with Nazi Germany, after having signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He explains that the pact was named a "peace treaty" and therefore was not a formal alliance. Wojsyl insists that the fact of Nazi-Soviet alliance is kept in the article, for preserving the historical context of the later Soviet presence within the Atlantic Charter. Wojsyl claims that in spite of the peacefully sounding name, the Nazi-Soviet pact was in fact an alliance, because of the secret protocol in which the signatories agreed on establishing the border between them within territory of independent Poland. According to Wojsyl, the subsequent facts (Nazi and Soviet invasion of Poland next month) confirm this. Nixer claims that the sole purpose of the Soviet invasion was protection of civilians against the Nazis. --Wojsyl 19:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Wojsyl hits the nail on the head. Amen. nobs 19:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

So Poland was then also an ally of Germany (before German invasion in Poland) in spite the fact it invaded Czechoslovakia WITHIOUT any treaty, even Munich agreement did not allow Poland to do so (in opposition of Germany, which was allowed invade Czechoslovakia by Munich treaty). Hitler strictly supported Polish demands in Czechoslovakia.--Nixer 20:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That is not the point of this particular dispute. But indeed, Polish annexation of the disputed Czechoslovak territories in 1938 was independent from the Nazis. --Wojsyl 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Without feeling Hitler support Poland, Czechoslovakia would be able to resist Polish offensive.--Nixer 20:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You're loosing the focus again. What offensive ? There was no "Polish offensive". --Wojsyl 21:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This is misleading. Sure, if no one else was involved, Czechoslovakia would be able to resist Poland militarily. But there was no prospect of that scenario. Germany was determined to destroy Czechoslovakia, by first taking the crucial border areas where all Czech fortifications were.

So Poland and Germany were allies - without help from Germany Poland was unable to occupy the areas of Czechoslovakia. Note that Poland also helped Finland in its war against USSR. Only Hitler's attack against HIS ALLY POLAND made Poland a country of anti-Hitler coalition.--Nixer 21:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Poland and Germany found that temporarily their interests converged, as both had territorial claims on Czechoslovakia. But they were not allies, according to the formal definition of the term. If you think otherwise, please tell me when exactly the Polish-German military alliance was signed? Which document should one refer to?Balcer 22:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Could we say Poland and Germany were allies de facto?--Nixer 22:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Balcer, I beg you, don't feed the troll. --Wojsyl 22:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I will take Wojsyl's advice and take a break from this discussion for a bit. Really, the proper place for this subject would be the talk page of History of Cieszyn and Tesin or some similar article. Balcer 23:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia also were inhabited mostly not with Poles--Nixer 21:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, they were not inhabited by Russians or Soviets either. Anyway, USSR took more than half of Poland, Cieszyn was 1% of Czechoslovakia. Surely you must understand the orders of magnitude difference here. Plus, for what it's worth, Poland took Cieszyn peacefully with agreement from the Czech government. USSR simply invaded Poland and got the territories by force of arms. Balcer 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Did I understood correctly - If anybody takes your purse, holding a knife at your neck - he takes it not by force? Or Poland did not plan invade Czechoslovakia in the case of refuse?--Nixer 22:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Huh, may be Hitler was also annoyed by the fact that he should divide Polish territories with Stalin - in fact he did not need any "allies" to defeat Polish army.--Nixer 20:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think he did not. But why did the Soviets sign the alliance in which they agreed for a border on Vistula River then ? --Wojsyl 21:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Question: How many square miles did Germany occupy and how many square miles did USSR occupy? nobs 20:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you'll find this image helpful. The border according to the threaty was set up on rivers San, Vistula and Narew. The picture is from September 25, a day after city of Warsaw was bombed by 1150 Germain aircraft. Warsaw surrendered on September 27, the last major battle of the campaign was fought on October 5. --Wojsyl 21:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

China

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

July 7, 1937, as it says in the article. Grant65 (Talk) 13:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

Does anyone dispute that China as a whole was at war with Japan in 1937-45? Both Nationalists and Communists fought the Japanese, in addition to occasionally fighting each other. Grant65 (Talk) 00:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

This does need to be clarified; I suggest it simply is easier to do so now rather than later. nobs 01:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What needs to be clarified? The people of both the present day People's Republic of China and the Republic of China were both at war with Japan from 1937. "China" covers both of them. Grant65 (Talk) 06:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

An article is going to be written on the Two China policy; as well as a full explaination of the activities of Mr. Harry Dexter White in the U.S Treasury Dept. This all relates to the subversion of FDR's Four Freedoms and the founding of the UNO. By 1949, one of the primary cornerstones that the post-war world was to be built upon, was subverted. All these issues will be discussed and written about. So it needs to be clarified either now or later. As of now, the use of a generic, geographic reference to "China" simply repeats the lies & bullshit that has been part of the writing of history prior to release of Venona documents, opening of KGB Archives, and other recent developments in declassification. So it's a simple choice, continue spewing the lies of the past half century, or begin investigating and reporting facts. nobs 21:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Does the two China situation have any direct relationship to the Allies of World War II? If so, I would like to hear how, especially since both of the Chinas were at war with Japan. Grant65 (Talk) 03:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

One China was an ally of the United States; another China was an ally of the Soviet Union. Stalin refused to meet with Chiang Kai-shek at the Tehran Conference, one of the founding conferences of the UNO (see History_of_the_United_Nations#Preliminaries); Chaing kai-shek and the Republic of China were one of the founding members of the UNO. Thus Churchill & FDR met separately in the Cairo Conference. Meantime, a concerted effort within the United States Government, of agents working on behalf of the Soviet Union, subverted President Roosevelt's policy of support for the Republic of China (Kuomintang). The Republic of China did sign as the United Nations Charter in 1945, however, by 1949 the Comintern affiliated CCP, with the aid of CPUSA operatives within the United States Government, effectively subverted official, stated, American policy and support for the Kuomintang. The Congress of the United States passed legislations in this support, including direct monetary support. The United States Department of the Treasury, under Harry Dexter White, refused to transfer the funds appropriated by Congress, and promised by FDR to Chaing Kai-shek. The funds were to stabilize the Chinese currency. Inflation hit 1000%, the Republic of China lost popular support, and the Comintern affiliated CCP overthrew the legitimate government of China. By 1950, when the subversion became more than apparent, the U.S. then was at war with two of its previous allies, the USSR & the people of China, in the Korean War. And the whole foundation of the post-World War II international cooperation, i.e. the United Nations, was put in question.

This is just a thumbnail sketch. The investigation into the Treasury Department is only one aspect, and it took 12 years. It wasn't even commenced until 5 years after White's death. The Report took two years to write. There has always been much confusion around these issues, and we can begin by helping unraveling the confusion, rather than perpetualing the myths. nobs 04:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

See ; the Morgenthau Diary (China), of which the National Archives and Records Administration description of "records at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library selected to illustrate the implementation of Roosevelt administration policy in China," there are only 150 copies in existence. nobs 04:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what's your point? Both "Chinas" were fighting Japan, so no distinction is required. Grant65 (Talk) 08:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Or rather there was only one China at the time, and the China article relates to a series of regimes over thousands of years, not just the People's Republic of China. Anyone seeing the Republic of China mentioned in this article now could be forgiven for thinking that it refers to the country generally known as Taiwan, (when in fact Formosa was a Japanese colony at the time and many Formosans served in the Japanese military). On that basis, I'm changing the refernce in the first paragraph to China. Grant65 (Talk) 14:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

How about removing the whole first paragraph:

World War II is generally considered to have begun in 1939 in Europe. Some historians have argued that it began on July 7, 1937, when China responded to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and engaged the Empire of Japan in full-scale hostilities (which continued until 1945). However, this conflict (at least prior to December 7, 1941), is usually regarded as being the Second Sino-Japanese War. World War II is usually dated from the German invasion of Poland, on September 1, 1939.

altogether from the article ? It does not bring anything as for the alliances, and only speculates about then the WW2 started. These speculations do not belong here anyway. Or maybe move it to the footnoe, if you consider this information vital. If it stays however, the issues of which China was involved need to be clarified beyond doubts. This is an encyclopedia here. --Wojsyl 14:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Even using the 1937 date would be questionable, as the Mukden Incident of 1931 or the Shantung Incident of 1927 "some historians" use as the starating point. Then, if we go back that far we'd have to include the Spanish Civil War, Italian invasion of Ethiopia, etc. I second the motionb to remove it. nobs 16:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Grant: the confusion over CCP & Taiwan is resolved easily by using the proper regime name, Kuomintang. The arguement about how they both were fighting Japan pales in light of the fact that our principal ally, the Soviet Union, actively was at war with our principal ally, the Kuomintang, and ultimately subverted our principal foreign policy objectives as to why we were fighting WW II in the first place, why Americans were willing to shed thier own blood. Plus numerous other factors to be considered. Simply put, the disinformation campaign that we aided China, and China was an ally leads to these links China#Historical_political_divisions; which then leads you to this Political divisions of China and this History_of_the_political_divisions_of_China#Republic_of_China. Clearly, "China" in the context of the 1930s is a geographic reference, not a poltical ally.nobs 17:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Lend Lease

Grant: Let spell it out another way: Congress authorized Lend Lease aid to the Soviet Union & the Kuomintang; the Soviet Union channelled Lend Lease from the United States to the CCP. So in the eyes of many Chinese, the United States supplied both Kuomintang & CCP with weapons so the Chinese would kill themselves. This certainly was not U.S. stated policy, nor its objectives; but in truth & reality, it is what happened. And many Chinese today (and others around the world) clearly remember this. nobs 17:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The CCP and KMT were both fighting Japan, it's as simple as that. The Second Sino-Japanese War started in 1937 and continued until 1945. And no, I don't want to remove the first paragraph. Grant65 (Talk) 00:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I understand what you are saying; it's simply not relevant to the article. Grant65 (Talk) 00:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is extrememly relevent, and it is exactly this inattention to detail that brought about the subversion uf US policy. 1995 is the date of departure for historical revisionism which will take place. It may take decades. But much of what is known about, assumed, and taught in schools, regarding the the deacdes of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s will be rewritten. nobs 01:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

China, Part 2

What does any of the above have to do with who was fighting who in WW2? How is it relevant to the article that there was a different regime in China in 1937? I suggest, in fact, that to say Kuomintang instead of China is seriously misleading: the Chinese Communist Party was also fighting the Japanese and therefore the present regime was fighting in 1937. China covers both entities. Grant65 (Talk) 11:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

American funding to it's ally, the Soviet Union, to fight the Axis, was being transfered to fight Americans ally, the Kuomintang. To Refer to the CCP in 1937 (which can fit the modern definition of a terrorist organization) as "China" is misleading. In no sense can the CCP be referred to as "China" in 1937. It was not a legitimate government; it was actively engaged in illegal acts under International Law at that time to remove a legitimate government; it was funded by illegal acts of subversion; and its primary belligerency was directed against the legitimate government, not Japan. Again, to refer to the CPP as "China" in 1937 is a blatant falsehood. If source information, other than the CCP, or U.S. government files other than those that wittingingly or unwittingly can be developed, to prove the CCP was activiely carrying on some belligerency against Japan in 1937, than the proper thing to do is list both Kuomintang and CCP (or the so-called United Front of China). This may be the best solution for now. nobs 14:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again, the article is not about parties or regimes within Allied countries, especially when all concerned were fighting Axis forces. According to Sino-Japanese_War_(1937-1945)#Invasion_of_China, Chiang was forced at gunpoint to form an alliance with the CCP. Hardly sounds like the reds were unenthusiastic! Grant65 (Talk) 22:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is another issues that must be considered here; there is a wealth of information in Misplaced Pages on Chinese involvement in WWII, some written by editors sympathetic to the Chinese Nationalist, some obviously carrying the present day CCP version of events. This volume of material likewise must be dealt with. No sense us compounding the problem here when it is within our power to strive for clarity. nobs 00:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party, the KMT had 1,700,000 men in 1937, and the CCP 70,000 . All this information needs to be checked against what is in Misplaced Pages already. Epoch Times states for example,

"The CCP labeled the “Long March” as a northbound anti-Japanese operation. It trumpeted the “Long March” as a Chinese revolutionary fairy tale. It claimed that the “Long March” was a “manifesto,” a “propaganda team” and a “seeding machine,” which ended with the CCP’s victory and their enemies’ defeat.

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

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

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

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

All this material must be addressed (See The “Anti-Japanese” North-Bound Operation—The Flight of the Defeated, to the end of Part II). nobs 03:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on the respective war efforts of the KMT and CCP. It has nothing to do with the issue. China is China is China is China. And all of it was at war with Japan in 1937-45. Grant65 (Talk) 10:08, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

CCP propaganda & revisionism should not be considered the factual basis for a Misplaced Pages article. nobs 16:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So they weren't both at war with Japan? Grant65 (Talk) 23:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be taking place on Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War and much of the material added to this article (regarding Soviet and German support for China) should be moved to that article. It relates to earlier periods and has no direct relationship to the Allies of WW2.Grant65 (Talk) 23:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The above reference material, specifically

"Except for a few battles, including the one fought at Pingxing Pass, the CCP did not make much of a contribution to the war against the Japanese at all" and

"When the Japanese surrendered, the CCP incorporated the surrendering soldiers into its army"

is sufficient to suspect any CCP contributions outside Pingxing Pass and the Hundred Regiment Battle, unless references other than the CCP can be cited to assert such claims, or it can be properly sourced those battles occurred in 1937. nobs 23:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

And just as it is enough to say that Poland was at war with Germany in 1939-45 and at war with the USSR in 1939-42, it is enough to say that China was at war with Japan in 1937-45. It is so absurd to say that the CCP did not contribute to the war against Japan that I hardly know where to begin. Grant65 (Talk) 10:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

You can begin with non-CCP sources that verify CCP's revisionism. nobs 17:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

God give me strength... How about the US Marines? Check the origins of Gung Ho and follow the links from there. Grant65 (Talk) 00:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

De facto

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

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

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

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

Italy, Ethiopia

I think, we should mention here the Italian invasion in Ethiopia, Albania and so on, shouldn't we?

Unlike the Chinese-Japanese conflict, which went from 1937-45, the Second Italo-Abyssinian War was over by December 1936, guerilla activities excepted. The League of Nations had even dropped sanctions against Italy by that time.Grant65 (Talk) 12:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed--Nixer 12:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

SU/DE: Allies or not

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

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

Here is a recent BBC story about entitled Questions remain over Yalta's legacy. Key quote:

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

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

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

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

So, if calling the Soviet Union and ally of Nazi Germany before '41 is what mainstream historical thought does, we should keep it. Otherwise, we should not. The "secret appendix" is known for some time and if the term "allies" was the most common phrasing to describe it, I would probably know. And I think this phrasing is rarely used if at all. Maybe it is widely used in Poland, but that's not enough. So, we should state the fact (mention the Pact), but keep the analysis that some Wikipedians prefer out of the article, because only indisputably accepted mainstream analysis may be presented in WP as fact. I will change tha article as per this (actually, Balcer himself did so earlier). Please do not revert without discussion. --Irpen 02:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The point to be made here is that SU & DE had a de facto pact to (1) invade Poland (2) dismember Poland. The fact that the SU did so 3 weeks after Deutschland did (after France, Great Britain, etc declared war) is of little significance or consequence. What should be revised is the opening statement that the World War II began when Germany invaded Poland, because clearly it was a prearranged agreement with the Soviet Union. Both parties waged aggressive war, both parties committed (as the Nuremberg Tirbunal declared) a Crime Against Peace. nobs 02:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Moscow, September 28,1939.

For the Government of the German Retch:

J. RIBBENTROP

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

W. MOLOTOV (194.30.182.245)

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

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

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

It is easy to find examples of people that are not Polish, and that call it by the name. I don't think Prof. Gerhard Rempel is Polish, hopefully he is not a wikipedian either. He specializes in modern European history and he explains:

The public text of the Nazi-Soviet Pact was simply an agreement of nonaggression and neutrality, referring as a precedent to the German-Soviet neutrality pact of 1926. The real agreement was in a secret protocol which in effect partitioned not only Poland (along the line of the Vistula) but much of Eastern Europe. To the Soviets were allotted Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Bessarabia; to the Nazis, everything to the West of these regions, including Lithuania. Each of the two signatories was to ask the other no questions about the disposition of its own "sphere of interest." This nonaggression pact, coupled with the trade treaty and arrangements for large-scale exchange of raw materials and armaments, amounted to an alliance.

The older sources of course were not aware of the fact of the alliance, but hey, we are writing it now. It is 2005. We know now that the secret protocol to the pact existed and we know its text, including the Article II:

"In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San. The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments...".

A non-aggression pact ? A good one. Now, a question to you: Why was this protocol made secret, while the whole pact was not ? If you answer this question you'll also understand why Soviets called the treaty "a non-aggression pact" and not an alliance, despite of its content and true intentions. --Wojsyl 04:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It is true in the English speaking countries you have decades of disinformation to cover for Soviet aggression. This should be considered in the wider context of revisionism vis-a vis Venona project materials, that effectively document Soviet infiltation and subversion into the United States Government, subversion of its foreign policy objectives, and subversion of its media. nobs 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Nothing's wrong with it as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's mentioned next to USSR (this I consider vital for maintaining the historic truth). I don't insist on calling it an alliance if you find the name controversial or abusive. However I believe using "alliance" would be especially proper in the context of this article, which is about WW2 alliances after all. This would best illustrate how dynamic the alliances were, and that SU was not that friendly throughout all the war, as we tend to think now. As to "mainstream media", I think that wikipedia would better reflect historic truth than popular wisdom. --Wojsyl 06:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I placed it exactly next to the USSR where it belongs. Just take a look! What matters is not whether myself or others find the term abusive, but that we should not use the term whose acceptance in the field is not wide. I think trying to catch "historic truth" will lead us nowhere. No encyclopedia reflects some absolute truth. It reflects the prevailing knowledge of the field. That's why it is important to check against established and repuatble sources for conclusions and terminology. "Alliance" is sometimes used but it is not a universally agreed term (and I don't just meen FSU historians). --Irpen 21:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with this thinking, but you know this already from our other discussions. And I know that you're a big fan of copying Encyclopedia Britannica ;-) (sorry, I could not resist) --Wojsyl 22:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

??? -Irpen 22:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hasan

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

Western Ukraine and Belorussia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, but how does this relate to my explanations above ? --Wojsyl 11:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both Poland the USSR were Allies in 1942-45, even if it was at arms length. So it's irrelevant to the article which state was in control of western Ukraine and Belarus (which is now the standard English name). I suggest someone starts an article called Soviet-Polish territorial disputes if it is not already covered adequately elsewhere. I have removed the reference to this matter for the above reasons. Grant65 (Talk) 12:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC) You are incorrect.Soviets didn't reckognise Poland after April 1943.Soviet units engaged in murder of Allied forces of Polish origin. As to territories-USSR occupied much more then Western Ukraine and Western Belarus in 1939, so it would be incorrect also. --Molobo 20:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Belarus/Belorussia dispute, enclyclopedia and historic books use the terms accepted in the relevant time, not the modern ones. WW2 history books and articles say Rumania and Battle of Kharkov, while the modern names are Romania and Kharkiv. So, don't start the fight regarding the "Russian POV" with respect to Belorussia. There are other things in the article to address instead. --Irpen 22:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, I think we're already all set here. No need for new flames. My Belarusian friends consider "Belarussia" to be offensive and I see no reason not to respect their feelings. --Wojsyl 22:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

However, that wasn't the question here. One of the contributors to this article has frequently used the terms "Western Ukraine" and "Western Belorussia" in reference to part of pre-Hitler-Stalin-Pact Poland. Which, however you spell it, takes sides in a territorial claim of the time. The fact that these territories later became (internationally recognized as) part of western Belarus and western Ukraine confuses the issue somewhat; but these terms used in the historical context are POV, hence the neutral "Eastern Poland." ProhibitOnions 22:48:46, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

" The fact that these territories later became (internationally recognized as) part of western Belarus and western Ukraine confuses the issue somewhat" Last time I saw Bialystok is still Polish :) Here is the map that shows Soviet occupation-its clear the areas weren't limited to Belarus and Ukraine http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Map_of_Poland_%281945%29.png --Molobo 23:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Kuomintang

Should we indicate that Kuomintang collaborated with Nazis during the first stage of the Sino-Japanese war?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixer (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

All relevent discoverable facts & truth should be the standard & incorporated into the article. I am not certain to what extent pre-August 1939 conditions or events have been agreed upon. Now regarding KMT recieving German assistance, or collaboration as an Anti-Comintern ally as you seem to indicate, this is very relevent. However, by use of the phrase "collaborated with Nazis", if the intent is to paint the KMT as genocidal racists, that particular language would have to be supported by evidence. nobs 18:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I added this to pre-war allies; so the material should be shortened of course, I agree.

About your position that it is not proper place here for discussion of political parties. Take into account that parties also could be allies - not only states.--Nixer 07:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

pre-1939

I am somewhat in agreement with Grant that the pre-1939 belligerencies open the door to background material on the Spanish Civil War (again a Comintern belligerency) and the Ethopian Invasion by Italy, as well as predating the China Theatre back to 1927. But please note, the China section as written is very good right now, and it hate to see it buried somewhere where nobody would see it. nobs 00:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Ditto. --Wojsyl 07:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Grant65 (Talk) 04:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)