Talk:Allies of World War II

Archives
Archive 01 Archive 02 Archive 03 Archive 04

Finland (2)

Finland never joined Allies, neither was the country a former Axis Power. Show me the proves conserning Finland's joinal to Allies. --Kurt Leyman 13:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in that Finland did not join the United Nations (founded 1942) until 1955. Neverthless, the Finnish state (unlike e.g. Denmark) fought the Germans from September 27, 1943 as a co-belligerent of the UN.[1] Finland may therefore be regarded as an ally of the UN. Grant65 | Talk 12:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Finald was indeed a pawn of the Axis powers. It was a staging ground for invasion of the USSR from the north. Troops, tanks, etc were stationed in Finland.

-G

Philippines

Southeast Asia played a major role in the conlict but is not represented in the Allies portion of the template at the bottom of the page. So could anyone add the Philippines, which, at the time, is the only other country there that is either independent or partially independent other than Thailand. I mean if India is included...23prootie 05:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The template is a separate page and you should raise the matter there. By the way, I have just removed the Philippines from the list of declarations as it was a commonwealth of the United States at the time and although it had limited self-government, it did not have an independent foreign or defense policy until 1946. In other words, it was more independent than India at the time, but was not capable of declaring war on Japan in its own right. See the Commonwealth of the Philippines article. Grant65 | Talk 05:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Commonwealth government of the Philippines at that time was less of a commonwealth of the United States and more of a republic.--23prootie 06:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, at that time the Philippines qualifies for Sovereignty#Territorial_sovereignty.--23prootie 06:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to the Montevideo Convention

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

which the Philippines already had at the time including the last one. See Pacific war council and the Declaration by the United Nations.--23prootie 07:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The British Governmnet of India was also a member of both of those. India was not independent either. Grant | Talk 08:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth of the Philippines says: "The commonwealth would have its own constitution and be self-governing, though foreign policy would be the responsibility of the United States, and certain legislation required the approval of the American president." That made The Philippines in 1935-46 unable to declare war in its own right.

It seems to have been was roughly equivalent to Australia, Canada or the other British Dominions before 1931, when Britain controlled their foreign policy. Grant | Talk 08:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If the Philippines' status is equivalent to that of Australia, Canada or the other British Dominions before 1931, then the Philippines should be added to the article since most of those dominions are imentioned in Allies of World War I. -- 23prootie 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But there is no list of declarations of war in that article; the Allies are simply a list of countries. And -- apart from the fact that it wasn't an independent country in 1941 -- I can't find evidence of a declaration of war by the Philippines in 1941. It seems that the country was automatically at war when the U.S. was. Grant | Talk 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland & India

The article claims that Newfoundland was an independent member of the British Commonwealth. This is surely incorrect - at the time of the declaration of war (1939), Newfoundland was a British colony. Conversely, even though the British Indian Empire was governed from London, there was a separate Indian declaration of war (all other British colonies were deemed to have declared war upon the UKs declaration) and therefore India should be included. Not being an expert, is there anyone who can clarify this ? Thanks--Ordew 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are right about Newfoundland and I have just removed it from the list of declarations. There was a separate "declaration" by the British Government of India, but it was not like Canada declaring war. It would be incorrect to assume that, for example, during the gap between the British and Indian declarations, the Indian authorities would not have acted to impound hypothetical German merchant shipping in Indian ports. I mean the Indian military was effectively part of the British military. Grant65 | Talk 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey I think the dates when India and the Philippines joined the war should remain because while both states did not have full sovereignity at the time, they do now and they would have had that earlier if it weren't for the war. Besides, they both have enough foreign policy to join the United Nations.23prootie 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If we included every country that fought in 1939-45 and is now independent, the list would be a lot longer. Anyway, colonies are recognized at participants in World War II. I have to disagree that an independent India would have declared war on Germany, and I doubt that it would have declared war on Japan, unless it was invaded. The inclusion of colonies in the Declaration by the United Nations was a propaganda exercise on the part of the colonial powers. It did not reflect any genuine independence. Grant65 | Talk 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well anyway, I re-added the Philippines since it was meant to be independent long before World War 2 according to the Philippine Independence Act so its status can be compared to a Dominion or a de facto independent state.23prootie 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935-46): "However foreign affairs, currency, and defense, would remain under the purview of the United States, represented by a resident High Commissioner." I'm reverting on that basis. Grant65 | Talk 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa? Why are they included? Australia didn't have full independence until 1986, South Africa only got it in 1961 while Canada, in 1982. See also Dominion#Foreign_relations. 23prootie 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also from High Commissioner to the Philippines: "Under the Commonwealth, executive power was held by an elected Filipino President. The role of the High Commissioner was largely ceremonial." Anyway the Philippines already have a constitution in 1935. 23prootie 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A President and constitution does not necessarily mean independence. The title "President" was used in some British colonies. Several British colonies gained self-government under their own constitutions in the 1850s. A constitution makes a state, it doesn't necessarily make an independent state. The Philippines did not control its own foreign affairs or defense in 1941-45. The U.S. even had the right to absorb all of the Philippine forces into the U.S. military, which it did in December 1941. Britain had no such control over Dominion armed forces (indeed it didn't even have that power in World War One).

Newfoundland and Rhodesia had limited "self-governing colony" status during World War II. (The Dominion of Newfoundland ceased to exist in 1934.) As for foreign policy, see the Statute of Westminster (1931). All of the existing Dominions had the ability to decline to take part in WW2. The Dominions had already show a willingness to disobey Britain in foreign policy, even before the Statute. And those that had ratified the Statute needed to make separate declarations of war in 1939, in order for them to be formally at war. Australia underlined this point in 1942 by backdating ratification to September 1939. South Africa, which had strong historical ties to Germany, almost stayed neutral. The Republic of Ireland, which was technically a Dominion at the time, remained neutral. Grant65 | Talk 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While the Philippine Commonwealth was not independent at the time, the historical treatment of Filipinos were separate frm the Americans, that's why they should be mentioned, Also what about Bahawalpur which is part of British India.23prootie 06:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also why is * Czechoslovakia (Government-in-Exile) mentined. it does not have a territory.--23prootie 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the better solution is have exceptions since the term independent excludes only a handful of states.--23prootie 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are now about 200 independent states in the world. Most of them were not independent in WW2. Many of these still contributed to the Allies in some way. We have to draw the line somewhere. The Participants in World War II article is the place for non-independent countries. I'm not sure what you mean about the Czechoslovakian government-in-exile; it was recognised internationally and lots of governments-in-exile did not control their territory. Bahawalpur seems to have been the only part of the Indian subontinent which was independent of Britain and declared war ins own right; the article Bahawalpur District says "In 1936 Bahawalpur stopped paying tribute and openly declared independence." If someone has different information I would be interested to see it. While I agree that the "treatment of Filipinos were separate from the Americans", that is part of being a colonial country as much as an independent one. Grant | Talk 07:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think the article should still include countires that have the capacity to join the allies voluntarily, whether independent or not.-- 23prootie 07:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That is what the article is about. The capacity to join the allies voluntarily is independence. The Philippines became a member of the Allies when the US did. Grant | Talk 08:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Two and a Half

Is there a wiki article that explicitly mentions British diplomat Alexander Cadogan deeming the "Big Three" to really be the "Big Two and a Half"? Darth Sidious 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of the term. Grant65 | Talk 07:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

With a commonwealth that spans 1/4 of the globe... I would think Britian would be one of the "top" players too.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Greek History

It seems more accurate to place Greek's entrance into the Allied Forces around early 1941, not 1940. During the initial invasion, the Greeks held their own independantly. The Greeks were initially mistrustful of Churchill's intentions of putting Allied Forces back on European soil. Not the sort of attitude one would expect from an ally. See J. Lee Ready's "Forgotten Allies" Vol. I, pg 46-47. If anyone can find a better date, let me know. Frankencow 00:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

San Marino

Wasn't San Marino neutral in WW II?--Staberinde 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

San Marino declared war on Germany and Japan after Italy declared for the Allies Rhyddfrydol 24 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.128.238 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal From "Original Allies

--I propose the removal of this from the "original Allies" section: "Poland never officially surrendered to the Third Reich and the Polish government in exile after 1939 continued the Polish contribution to World War II on several fronts with hundreds of thousands of members in the Polish Army in France and UK, as well as the Home Army in occupied Poland. The Soviet Union however, did not recognize the government and in 1943 organized the Polish People's Army under Rokossovsky, around which eventually it constructed the post-war successor state the People's Republic of Poland in 1952." Why go into so detailed about Poland here? This can be explained more properly in a specific article about Poland during the war effort. Here it just seemed tacked on. At the same time, I could give a whole history about Free France, and state how France was split into two governments, the de facto Vichy government which formed the armistice with Germany, and the de jure Free French government which was the continuation of the French Third Republic, in which case it is TECHNICALLY correct to state that "France" did not formally surrender, but that the split de facto "French State", as in "Vichy France", did. My point is not to add that, my point is to show that this quotation on Poland's continuing efforts following 1939 should be listed elsewhere for organization purposes. I received a message from someone complaining of this edit when I removed it from the article, so I'm explaining here WHY I think it should be removed. -Johan

On the contrary, France did surrender, on June 22, 1940, and the French Third Republic was succeeded by the Vichy State. The Free French organisation in London was really the basis of the Provisional Government of the French Republic installed by the Allies in 1944. Anyway, I think it would make more sense to explain the situation with France and other countries more fully, rather than slashing the passage about Poland. Grant | Talk 12:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That depends on who you're speaking to. Charles de Gaulle fully considered the Free French government as the continuation of the French Third Republic, and was his main points of discussion in such places as the Brazzaville Manifesto of 27 October 1940. This principle is precisely how he conducted himself during the Liberation of Paris; when the FFI leaders asked him to solemnly declare the reinstatement of the Republic, he refused, replying that the Republic had never ceased to exist (Is Paris Burning? - Larry Collins/Dominique Lapierre). As such, Free France was considered in the post-war world and in every French government since as the "real" de jure France, the continuation of the Third Republic. The idea that it was merely the "pre-Provisional Government" is an American notion, as during the time period, the United States recognized Vichy as the new French government (until 1943 with the foundation of the French Committee of National Liberation). (The United Kingdom only unofficially held contacts with Vichy, and considered Free France the official government of "French people continuing the war effort", but never quite muddled itself as much in these political affairs.) But in post-war France it was essentially established that Vichy France was an illegal government of traitors and Free France was the continuation of the Third Republic, and that's the way it's been seen since (in technical matters; the modern French educational system mainly teaches Vichy history, as Free France largely concerns the empire, most of which is no longer intact).

The designation of Free France as a continuation of the Third Republic is fairly legally established as well, considering de Gaulle was the last member of the Third Republic government to be safe from imprisonment (when in disagreement) by the Petainist coup d'etat. I should note that, if I remember correctly, Prime Minister Reynaud, who resigned because he wanted to continue the war effort from North Africa, did not officially resign (legally; rather, he merely fled and was later imprisoned); as such, Petain's coup d'etat was in fact TECHNICALLY unconstitutional (I state technically because one must keep in mind this was not at all so clear in the time period), and as such de Gaulle was TECHNICALLY correct when repeatedly stating he was the real French government. (De jure as opposed to de facto.)

My point is that the idea that Free France was not the direct heir to the French Third Republic (or continuation of it) is primarily an American influence, and that usually Free France is in fact considered the continuation of the Republic and the legal French government. As such, while for all practical purposes France under the French State DID surrender, the surrender itself technically did not happen because the de jure France, that is, Free France, did not surrender. It's all a matter of technicalities versus practicalities.

My personal opinion was that this should be left to the Free France topic, and correspondingly the discourse in the "Original Allies" section should be left to the Polish Contribution in WWII topic for organizational purposes. Perhaps leave links stating to see "Free France" and "Polish Contribution in WWII" for more information on the fates of the two Allied nations? Or, indeed, one COULD elaborate more on this subject and add the full description (such as that which I stated previously) on France to coincide with the Polish paragraph. I just don't know if that would be efficient.

--Johan (14 February 2007)

I think we could have a few, economical pars on the French situation, which is why I created sub-section for it. Grant | Talk 07:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's better now that there's a portion denoting the history of France during the war I suppose, but there's one thing I disagree with: the French Third Republic did not surrender. The French Third Republic was overthrown by the Vichy French State following the Petainist coup d'etat. As I said above, de Gaulle considered himself the continuation of the French Republic, and indeed so did Prime Minister Paul Reynaud (who refused to take part in the French surrender and left the government, but not officially; he was afterward imprisoned by Petain), who gave de Gaulle money before de Gaulle's June 17th flight to London, and who in his 1955 memoirs wrote: "All he did was comply with my instructions as a legitimate minister of the only constitutional French government. Of course I couldn’t guess he would be that successful while we were going head-on to a Coup d’Etat..." As such, I'm going to modify the sentence in the Wiki subsection to stating the "fall of the Third Republic" rather than its surrender.

--Johan (25 February 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.74.92 (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

France as major ally

Petercorless, I accept that France was major ally in 1944-45, but I would like a reference realting to that period, not from 1946. Grant | Talk 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Potsdam is 1945. It led to the creation of the Council of Foreign Ministers and the United Nations Security Council. The UN was formed in October 1945, and the UNSC met in early 1946. These are significant matters to the resolution of the war. --Petercorless 04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Will you stop getting rid of mentions of the UN Security Council? --Petercorless 04:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not formed during WW2. Please stop adding it. Grant | Talk 04:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Next we will talking about the Berlin Airlift or some other anachronism. Grant | Talk 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The United Nations was the name of the Allies during the war. That power structure was formalized between October 1945 and the UN Security Council's first meeting in January 1946. This is a direct result of the war. --Petercorless 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Result of" ____" means not part of "____". Grant | Talk 05:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I do not appreciate you deleting the reference as "silliness." You might think it is silly, but you are mischaracterizing a valid direct result of World War II. You are also on the verge of violating WP:3RR. I'll stop for now, but I truly want you to reconsider your excisions based on your POV. --Petercorless 07:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The removed text in question is as follows, which I will quote so that others may judge its validity: This also resulted in these five nations being given permanent seats on the newly-formed United Nations Security Council which met for the first time on January 17, 1946 in the immediate aftermath of war. --Petercorless 07:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The silliness was not in reference to your edits but to edits emanating from an IP address.

I think it's fine to mention the US Security Council further down the page, but I don't believe that it belongs in the intro. Grant | Talk 08:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no other section below where it would be easily inserted. Are you suggesting we create a section specially for the creation of the United Nations as a result of the alliances of World War II? While I would not be adverse to that, it seems like an even more significant change than to mention this as a single-line at the end of the lead paragraph. It also logically flows with the rest of the text. --Petercorless 08:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be such a big adjustment; we already have a section on the Declaration by United Nations; we probably should have more on the UN anyway, so that section could simply be be renamed "United Nations" and expanded. Grant | Talk 09:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. If you read it over, you will note that the Charter, which authorized the Security Council, was authored and signed during the war. It still bothers me how there was an insistence it was a post-War organization. While they did not meet formally as the UNSC until after the cessation of hostilities, all of this was produced during the war, and they met as the de facto leadership such as at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference where the formation of the UNSC was decided. --Petercorless 10:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Poland as a major ally

I would greatly appreciate it if some of the fine editors here could educate me as to why France is considered a major ally and Poland is not. Also, this may be something of a semantics debate but I think Poland and France were not "Allies" in the same sense as Nepal and Honduras were "Allies." I'm not sure how to highlight this fact other than expanding the introduction or including some kind of troop strength reference. JRWalko 02:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

Does anyone else find the title, "Allies of World War II," slightly jarring? These were Allies in the War, not Allies of the War. Might we consider modifying the title to "Allies in World War II"? logologist|Talk 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Although Axis powers of World War II says of, so maybe if this article were called Allied powers of World War II...? Xaxafrad 02:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the title. Originally there was one aricle, Allies, about WW1, WW2 and other uses of the term. That was then split.

I don't like "Allies in World War II" because to me it implies an organisation that existed before and/or after the war. And "the Allies of World War II" is a common term whereas "the Axis of World War II" is not. Axis is an adjective in this case, i.e it is always "Axis _______". Grant | Talk 02:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility: "Allies (World War II)." No preposition, less potential ambiguity. Same with "Allies (World War I)."

There was only one "Axis" — in World War II — so that article could be, simply, "Axis powers." Nihil novi 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol's edit and my reversion

Just to explain why I reverted and to offer a basis for discussion.

1) I'm not sure what the first sentence is supposed to say. The details about when, where and how the war started can be found in the World war II article. Sating that the war started in Poland doesn't seem to be related to the purpouse of this section, that is to list the major participants.

2) Seems to be an attempt to minimalise the French and Soviet contributions. To a degree this was already present (France's double major power status in 1939/40 and again from 1944 onwards). In any case this didn't add anything useful to the article (maybe it would fit in the body, but not in the intro).

--Caranorn 12:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for opening up this dialogue. My intent was to immediately illustrate what I feel to be the key point- that the nature of shifting alliances during a conflict like World War II is very, very complex. It was not intended as POV edit to downplay French and Soviet contributions. I don't agree that the purpose of the section is to document who was and who wasn't a "major" ally- how are you defining major? To me, the purpose is to introduce the concept of the formal Alliance, the etymology of the term, what its composition was (including a mention of the mix between large and small countries, the contrast between the European theatre Alliance and that in the Pacific, etc.), who was in it, how it operated, what the consequences were. The statement "France, before its defeat in 1940 and after its liberation in 1944, was also considered a major Ally" in particular needs a citation. Much of the content currently reads like it was written by FDR's mum or something- why is he mentioned twice? I do have to disagree on one point- I see it as very important to state clearly that the Alliance was not stable and that indeed some erstwhile Axis powers actually joined the Alliance as the war progressed, just as some erstwhile Allies joined the Axis, and just as some neutrals changed their minds and joined one or the other. Badgerpatrol 13:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. On the Allied side, only the (majority of the) Commonwealth and China were in from the beginning all the way to the end. Everyone else (who was not conquered) had significant moments of neutrality, co-belligerence or outright partnership with the Axis. Oberiko 01:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Poland, which — though overrun — never surrendered, was also in from first to last. See "Polish contribution to World War II." Nihil novi 05:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

USSR

There is a real problem on this article in the way that the Soviet Union is handled. The USSR was an ally of Germany in September 1939 and invaded Poland, this making it on Axis side not the Allied side. I'm not enough of an expert to be able to know whether the USSR was a technically a member of the Axis or a co-belligerant or an ally, but I'd say that the a new separate paragraph is warranted. For example, did Britain or anybody else declare war on the USSR after it invaded Poland? I've added "formerly a member of the Axis" to the USSR in the main listing in the meantime, since that is the phrase used elsewhere in the list. This is sometimes regarded as an embarrassing episode in the history of the USSR but it shouldn't be downplayed, it was central to the evolution of the War. Macguba 12:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It could not technically be a member of the Axis as one of the principles of that alliance was to oppose communism. In 1939 and to much lesser degrees 1940/41 the Soviet Union cooperated with Germany (for indeed very complex reasons), including the invasion/occupation of Eastern Poland but with minimal cooperation (mostly to avoid a premature conflict between Germany and the SU). The Soviet Union also made more or less reasonable (to avoid confusion, some were reasonable, many were not) demands on Finland and Romania, the later being met, the first leading to the Winter War. Additionally the Baltic States were annexed. None of this really constitutes an alliance with Germany, though again there clearly was cooperation. I truly dislike such additions as they massively oversimplify the actual events.

By the way, obviously no Allied power declared war on the SU over the Winter War. Though there were obviously some considerations to that effect. The most notable outside contribution to the Winter War would be volunteers from Sweden and Norway sent to Finland (or assembling to be sent). (Just noticed I misread that, no DOW over the Soviet invasion/occupation of Eastern Poland).--Caranorn 13:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has removed the "formerly a member of the Axis" from the USSR,which is slightly surprising since the point is under debate. What phrase would be most appropriate? To leave it blank is misleading. Macguba 17:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the phrase "co-belligerent" is sufficient and factual. Oberiko 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-belligerent it is then. Macguba 13:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget they INVADED POLAND AND FINLAND, AND SLAUGHTERED INNOCENT PEOPLE.

The Soviet Union was never a member of the Axis and was never allied with Germany. They signed a non-aggression pact and agreed to carve up Poland, after Stalin was unable to forge a unified front against Germany with the Western Allies. Facing a choice between fighting Germany alone, without even Polish co-operation, letting Hitler take ALL of Poland, and partitioning for SOME of Poland, they chose the latter. Yes, the USSR attempted to re-conquer some of the territories taken from Imperial Russia by the Kaiser, a nasty and condemnable bit of business, but it had nothing to do with being allied with Hitler. I mean, Britain made an almost identical pact with Germany, a non-aggression pact and a partition of Czechoslovakia , and it would be preposterous to call that an "alliance". The claim that USSR and Germany were allies is popular with American pop-historians and European right-wingers, but it's completely and obviously false.

Eleland 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, it does not seem like you could be more wrong, or stupid for that matter. It's not that it wasn't able to get a pact with the western allies, it's that the western allies weren't able to get a pact with Stalin. Britain did not do the same thing as Russia did because THEY DECLARED WAR on Germany 2 days after the German invasion of Poland, not 2 years like Russia. And if they did take the latter so that Germany would not have all of Poland, then why did they export hundreds of thousands of Poles to Russia for slave labour, so that they all died in the GULAGS, and even after they declared war on Germany, the Poles were still treated like dogs? And you have no idea what you are talking about, The Kaiser did not take Finland or the Baltic States from the USSR. After WWI, the

provisional Russian government allowed republics to leave the USSR if they desired so, although they later incorporated the Baltic States under force. It is absoloutely absurd to suggest that the Russians were good before 1941. --LtWinters 22:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't call me stupid. And please don't accuse me of suggesting the Soviet Union was great (I think you meant the Soviet Union, and not the Russian people in general). Obviously they committed major atrocities. The question was whether the USSR was aligned with the Axis, not whether they were nice guys. The area of eastern Poland that was annexed by the USSR did correspond with areas that had been lost by Imperial Russia in WWI and then the Russo-Polish war. Finland and the Baltics left with mutual consent, but I wasn't talking about Finland and the Baltics, I was talking about Eastern Poland. Eleland 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way to think of it is that the USSR essentially represented a third side which made alliances with whomever was convenient. Early on, the USSR was considered by the Allies to be in the Axis camp if not officially, then by action; during the Winter War, there was consideration by France and the UK to send troops to Finland to aid against Soviet aggression (though they also planned on leaving troops stationed in Norway to hinder German access to Swedish iron). It was only after being attacked by Germany that the USSR joined the Allies, and even then it was out of necessity, basically an enemy-of-my-enemy thing. As soon as the German's (and Japanese) were defeated, they went right back to being their own again, hence the Cold War.

So, no, I don't think putting them as co-belligerent is to much. In the grander scale of mid-20th century history, they were basically just a co-belligerent of the Allies as well. Oberiko 23:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that LtWinters seems to ignore the pre WWII alliance talks involving France, Poland and the Soviet Union. Poland indeed left the Soviets few options when it denied them access to their territory in case of war with Germany. It's only after these decisions (and the partitioning of Czechoslovakia) that the Soviet Union started looking for other alternatives. None of those of course were aimed at an alliance with Germany, at best to gain time until the inevitable conflict with Germany would finally occur. And the mention of American Pop historians (you must mean the sports coaches) is a good one, luckily the rare breed of actual historians has managed to survive, though their teaching unfortunately doesn't reach the masses.--Caranorn 13:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you can't blame Poland, the Red Army never pulls out of anywhere when told to, so Poland didn't want to let them in and when the Russians went bad they wouldn't leave when told. I mean, the armistance for Japan was agreed on August 14, right? Soviet solgiers kept fighting until August 22 in Manchuria and September 3 on Salhakin Island. And let's not deal with this crap they were protecting themselves- did we ally ourselves with Japan when we were still industrializing for the war? Of course not, we stood our ground and didn't say ok we'll be your friends and help you do whatever you want (we did give them raw materials and that was stupid, but its aside from the principle of the matter). And still, no one seems to be able to find a reason to combat this- if the Soviets were good, then WHY DID THEY EXPORT POLISH PEOPLE FOR SLAVE LABOR. Somebody answer this.--LtWinters 15:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Who except you is talking about good or bad? And please stop the yelling. Concerning the Japan issue, formal military surrender seems to have been on September 2 1945, even then not all Japanese forces seem to have followed those orders (or were concerned by the orders). Lastly I recall the Soviet forces always offered surrender, there doesn't seem to have been an Armistice in Manchuria, but I'm far from an expert on events in the Pacific and Asia.--Caranorn 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, I think the way we have it right now is fine, I was trying to remind everyone that they weren't in our group of "best friends" before 1941. --LtWinters 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it's quite obvious you're not an expert, an armistance is an armistance, its like saying the Germans could have fought the allies after Nov 11 1918 because Versailles wasn't signed. The Japanese were falling back the whole time. They were trying to stop the fighting.--64.205.199.7 15:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You people may want to read some "grown up" books. The USSR absorbed Byelorussia and the West Ukraine (territories lost by Imperial Russia only a decade earlier) and not Poland.

-G

I've returned this to "co-belligerent" in the article. Somebody had changed it to "formerly neutral pursuing friendly relations with the Axis", which is simply false. Macguba 08:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how it is false. A non-aggression pact plus an agreement to partition territory does not an alliance make; Britain did exactly the same thing in 1938, and it would be preposterous to call Britain and Germany allies. The Soviets may have technically been "co-belligerent" for a few days in 1939, when they invaded Poland from the East largely unopposed, but there was very little fighting by that time anyway. Indeed, even the line which I inserted about "friendly relations" is something of a sop to historical myth-makers. Eleland 13:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is false because the USSR invaded Poland in formally agreed cooperation with Germany. The invasion was followed by continuous military occupation of Poland until the German attack. If that's not a co-belligerent I'm not sure what is, and by definintion you cannot be neutral if you invade somebody. I'm not claiming that the USSR was part of the Axis, or even a full scale ally, but a non-aggression pact plus an agreement to partion territory plus an armed invasion plus occupation does not a neutral make. I don't get your point about "largely unopposed", the success or failure of the opposition is irrelvant, it's the fact of an attack that matters. If the USSR had been neutral in September 1939 it would not have invaded Poland: if it had been on the side of the Allies it would have declared war on Germany as Britain, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nepal and South Africa did. As mentioned when this first came up some months ago I am not wedded to any particular word or description as long as the one we have is factually accurate.

Soviet troops only entered Poland (several weeks after the Axis) when the Polish military formally abandoned Poland for surrounding regions, Britian, etc. Does it still count as an "invasion" by the USSR?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

American colonies and territories

Can someone tell me why the Americian colonies and territories (Guam, American Samoa) etc are listed separately, when the major British colonies (Newfoundland, Rhodesia etc) are not? Rhyddfrydol 24 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.128.238 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon

Lebanon is listed as joining the Allies on 27 January 1944 and on 27 February 1945. Which is correct? Rhyddfrydol 24 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.128.238 (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Was Yugoslavia really an Ally? They were invaded by Hitler shortly after a British supported coup d'etat (two days after signing the Tripartite Pact), but, as far as I can tell, there was no military support or agreements with the U.K.. I think Yugoslavia is much more similar to Iran or Iraq, countries invaded by one side, but not necessarily members of the other. Oberiko 00:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why the hell is France an allie? They weren't refered to as Cheese-eating surrender monkeys without a reason. Unlike them, the Yugoslavian resistance movement was huge (the French one was small and acting as part of the British army). M.V.E.i. 17:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Denmark?

In what sense did Denmark join the allies? john k 18:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I too am sceptical about including Denmark. There was no government-in-exile and Denmark, admittedly under German occupation, joined the Anti-Comintern Pact and even more or less sanctioned Frikorps Danmark. If no justification can be provided then I suggest the country is removed from the list. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nepal

Some months ago, Nepal was removed from the list without explanation[2]. Why? Is there any reason not to readd it? 96T (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Top of the page

At the top of the page there's all that weird text, I'd fix it but I don't know how. --69.255.226.122 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

Why is Czechoslovakia listed as entering the war on December 16, 1941? Is there a source for this? It seems to be counter-intuitive, given that Czech units in exile fought in France, in the RAF during the Battle of Britain and later. Leithp 14:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at History of Czechoslovakia#World War II, that date only appears to have significance because that's when USA recognised the Czech government in exile. Given that it had been recognised by the UK and the Soviet Union, I am going to change it to the earlier date. Leithp 10:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, see, I would argue that it should be an even earlier date. I would put the date at the time Czechoslovak troops actually became pledged to ally through treaty. Hence 2 October 1939 — the date of the Osusky treaty that allowed the reformation of the Czechoslovak army in France — is the beginning of the military alliance between Czechoslovakia and the Allies. The fact that neither France nor Britain had recognized the Czechoslovak National Liberation Committee as a government at the time is quite beside the point. The same authority that negotiated that treaty for the Czechoslovaks eventually did get recognized as a government, so there's a continuity there that shouldn't be ignored. The absolute latest you can really put the thing is December 1939, by which time both France and Britain had extended a form of diplomatic recognition to the CNLC, albeit still not as a government. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The earlier date sounds reasonable and a bit more sensible than the date I had chosen. Leithp 08:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oslo Group

In the opening sentance of the section on the Oslo Group, it says "The Oslo Group was an organisation of officially neu as governments in exile". What exactly is this supposed to mean? Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 18:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentences were partially deleted by vandalism. They have now been restored. Leithp 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick summary of Wikipedia's Allies of World War II page

Allies – In WW2, they were the US, UK, USSR, Poland, France, China, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil and others