Talk:Allies of World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The section Norway did not discuss the essential: Norway was neutral and did not formally become an ally until later. The military agreement of 1941 I guess made Norway an ally of the UK. Please keep this paragraph, the section is misleading and incomplete without.--— Erik Jr. 19:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

True. Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, and Belgium weren't part of the 'allies', they were first neutral, then they were occupied by Nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Major affiliated state combatants[edit]

I was already writing about it a couple months ago, I can't find that topic now so I am starting this once again. Anyway that time I had no time for making and showing you the analysis of the subject.

In the article you can find 5 honoured countries as the major Allies:

2.1 United Kingdom 2.2 China 2.3 France 2.4 Soviet Union 2.5 United States

Among the others there is no Poland which was much more "important" state during the war than Australia, Belgium or Czechoslovakia. Meanwhile it is showed here as the minor affiliated state together with countries that had almost no contribution in war.

Moreover if we say about major state Poland deserves much more for this title than France. I do not want anyone to understand me wrong. I haven't got anything against France but as the citizien of the country that suffered the most during the War, I can expect puting my country in the place that it deserved in this kind of articles.

In order to show you that my words are not just a result of national pride or something like this, below you can find my arguments.

I will be grateful if people who are able to edit this article will consider my arguments and move Poland to the section of Major states.

First of all Poland was the first state that fought against Nazi Germany. The war in Europe begun in Poland and the Poland was the first state that decided to stop the Nazism and defend itself. Poland was the country that fought the longest during the second World War. Started at the very begining and continued the fight during the whole war.

Secondly as I wrote before it suffered the most out of every countries. In numbers the biggest amount of deths were in USSR, China, Germany and... Poland (5,900,000 to 6,000,000). If we will look at it proportionally to the number of citiziens from 1939 Poland suffered the most (16.93 to 17.22% of population died). The number of military wounded Polish outnumbers the French. That may show the involvment in figths. Poland 766,606; France 390,000.

Of course the fact that you suffered the most maybe not the best argument to say that your country is the most important (however the last factor could somehow show the invlovment) but it may you anable to appreciate the achivments and influance of Poland that were able to do a lot beside such a great losses.

Time/country Poland France Comments Sources
September 1939 second army among the Allies First Allies Maybe the size of armies was bigger in France but let's be honest. They did not fight that time so the importance of Poland is much bigger. It was the only country actually fighting with Germany.
battle of France 75 000 I was not looking for the information, obviusly French forces were bigger that time.
After the fall of France in June 1940 19 000-35 000 3000 Polish forces among the Allies are bigger. France officially surrenders. Halfo of France joines Germany. Plus we need to add the resistances that were much bigger in Poland, while half of France was Axis force of Vichy France
End of 1940 21000 7000 "1940 is the year of the Battle of the Great Britain, one of the most important moments during the war. After British, Polish pilotes were second important in numbers and probbably the highest quality force during this critical moment. 141/145 Polish pilots took part in the Battle, only 13/14 French. These Polish pilots, representing about 5% of total Allied pilots in that battle, were responsible for 12% of total victories (203) in the Battle and achieved the highest number of kills of any Allied squadron.[3][4][19][20].

Meanwhile Vichy France was vollountairly one of the most important foreign trade partners of Germany enabeling them to bulid more bombs and more planes."
1941 I didn't find the data and I didn't look for it too much, nothing special happened that could change the situation significantly. Anyway almost until the end of 1942 Vichy was still part of Axis.
1943 West 89 600 70 000 "It is already more than French, it doesn't include the resistance forces." "

%C5%82y_Zbrojne_na_Zachodzie#cite "

after D-Day and the liberation of the French 1944 resistance 650 000

in the West 254 830 in the East 32 000

550 000 Only Polish resistance outnumbered French forces that moment.

1945 Near the end of the war, Polish contribution, in terms of numbers was matched or surpassed by that of France. It was mainly caused by 2 reasons. First of all France was liberated by western Allies. They were able to build their own army. Secondly in Poland German ocupation was changed into Russian ocupation. Comunists started to exterminate the Home Army (it started already in 1943). However the regular armies in the east and west could grow. Anyway in 30 April 1945, the Reichstag was captured, signalling the military defeat of Nazi Germany (we can say that it was partially Polish succes) and the war was almost over so even if that time French armies outnumberd Polish we shouldn't treat this year as the most important one.

I claimed about the influance of Polish pilotes in battle of Britain. I also told about the size of the Polish resistance. Moreover I should add that was the only example of resistance for such a big scale, that had both military and civil administration and through the whole war was cooperating with government in exile. Also Polish Intelligence had a lot of succeses, that helped a lot in winnig the war and judgeing of the war crimes (breaking of the Enigma, delivering of V2 parts,delivering the proofs for Holocaust). Polish troops had fought at every battlefronts of Europe and in Africa from begining till the end, from the East to the West, from the Narwik in Norwey to the deserts of Sahara.

I think there is more than enough reasons to put the Poland among the major Allies forces especially if there is France. Otherewise I would not say that this article is lying but it is manipulating the history.

After the war Poland had been situated by the Great Three in Soviet ocupation zone. Thus it could not develope as good as countries of western Europe, it could not use the Marchal Plan, it could not get its own occupation zone in Germany and it could not be placed in any way in The United Nations Security Council as the fixed state. France could do all of this things and that is why may be seen as the more important Allay.

I think someone who wrote this article has used this key (UNSC fixed members) to choose the major Allies but as I said this set of major states is manipulating the history, that should not happen in Wikipedia. That is why I ask you to consider my arguments and changing the article.

--Dusi91 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that Poland and Yugoslavia should be indicated in some way that were not "major" but neither "minor" Allies. FkpCascais (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
In other words, Poland and Yugoslavia were closer to "major" than "minor". FkpCascais (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
While I certainly dont disagree about the key role of Poland during WW2, in one way one can say that WW2 was about Poland. But according to WP policy we should use the labels found in reliable sources. «The major (allied) powers» often refers to the 3 big ones: US, UK, Soviet (for instance at Jalta and Potsdam). France was later included among the allies that occupied Germany. --— Erik Jr. 20:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Poland was important only for a few weeks in Sept 1939 and should not be in the top ten allies, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I searched Google Scholar and to me it appears that "major allied" refers to four countries or governments: USA, Soviet, UK and France. For instance:

  • "In 1943 the major Allied powers in Eu rope were England, France, the United States and the USSR, but several other powers were also deemed Allied. Ultimately, 19 of them acceded to the London Charter of August 8, 1945, which was one of the bases for the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Aug. 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1544, 82 UNTS 279 [hereinafter London Agreement]." (Bassiouni, M. C. (1994). The United Nations Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992). American Journal of International Law, 88(4), 784-805.)
  • "The year 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the end of World War Two (WWII), and the major allied powers—China, Russia, the United States, Britain, and France..." (Ming, L. (2015). Northeast Asia Order after WWII: Continuity, Compliance, Power-Transition and Challenges. The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 27(2), 163-186.)
  • "While judges from only the four major Allied powers sat on the Nuremberg Tribunal, judges from 13 nations (the nine nations that signed the Instrument of Surrender of Japan on September 15, 1945, ...." (Stover, E. (1995). In the shadow of Nuremberg: Pursuing war criminals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Medicine and Global Survival 2&3, 140-147.)

I also searched full text of some 300,000 volumes in the National library of Norway, and it is clear (albeit in the Norwegian language) that "major allied powers" original referred to UK, USA and USSR, later France was included in Europe and China in the Asian theatre. China was of course not involved in the occupation of Germany and Austria, so in that context there 3 major powers while, later the French zone was carved out the US and UK zones. --— Erik Jr. 21:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear All,

Thank you for your answers.

Frascati Thank you for your support. If you say so, we should do something about this. It is very unfair to put a countries with such a big imput in one group with Cuba or Luxemburg. Maybe there should be additionall group for countires such as France, Poland and Yougoslavia. Or there should not be division. Or countries should be grouped in the order of entering the fight that would not harm anyone and that would have an extra eductational effect. The current situation is "refracting" the reality.

Erik Jr. You agreed with me that Poland had not the minor role in WW2. Now the problem are the sources as you wrote. In this case there is no problem. I have already given you the sources in my table. Actually it is already accepted by Wikipedia that Polish imput in WW2 could be bigger than French, it is written in article about Polish contribution in WW2, there are given the sources. If the claim that Polish imput could be bigger then French is accepted that means that it was bigger or it was very similar. If it is similar and France is among the major Allies than there is no reason to not put there a Poland. I know that France had it's own occupation zone but as I wrote the fact that France did and Poland did not was mainly caused by the geopolitical place of Poland and the policy of USSR. If the France would be in eastern Europe it would not have its own occupation zone. Anyway this is not the topic what was the situation of any country after the war but what was its role during the war. In my opinion above you can find enough proofs for a major role of Poland. The proofs with a given sources. All I wrote above is actually labeld by Wikipedia already.

See below:

" Numerous sources state that Polish Army was the fourth biggest Allied fighting contingent. Steven J. Zaloga wrote that "by the war's end the Polish Army was the fourth largest contingent of the Allied coalition after the armed forces of the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain."[53] Jerzy Jan Lerski writes "All in all, the Polish units, although divided and controlled by different political orientation, constituted the fourth largest Allied force, after the American, British and Soviet Armies."[54] M. K. Dziewanowski has noted that "if Polish forces fighting in the east and west were added to the resistance fighters, Poland had the fourth largest Allied army in the war (after the USSR, the U.S. and Britain)".[55]"


This is just a part of longer text. Anyway you have a labels, you agreed that it is not a minor force, you agreed that the war somehow was for Poland, so the only problem may be a good will.

Rjensen May I ask you than why do you agree for France among the top Allies? Above you have a proof with labels that Poland was at least simillary important (in my opinion more important during the most of the time). By importance I mean the forces involved in the fight.

Free France played a major role in taking control of the overseas French Empire, as well as fighting inside Europe in 1944-45. The Polish government in London seems to have little or no control over Polish forces inside Poland. Polish forces in Britain were under the control of the British. Polish forces under Kremlin control were part of the Allies & played a more important military role--and took over Poland when the war ended, but they get largely ignored here. Rjensen (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

-- (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC) -- (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can not support the conclusion that Poland was among the major allied powers or major affiliated combatants. We can not conclude based on the coverage on Wikipedia (see WP:NOR, sources must be external to WP. Reliable sources consistently talk about the 3 big powers (UK, US, USSR) + France (government in exile) + China. No sources talk about Poland as one of the major powers. This does of course not change the facts about Poland’s contribution and suffering, but WP should reflect the way these labels are commonly used in the sources. --— Erik Jr. 23:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
As I suggested last time this issue was raised, I think that the article would be better off without the split into 'Major' and 'minor' combatants. We should just list the countries, as this classification is meaningless (for instance, 'minor' combatant Canada contributed a high proportion of the Allied forces in the critical Battle of the Atlantic and played a prominent role in the 1944-45 European campaign, Australia did much of the heavy lifting in the South West Pacific in 1942-43, South African forces had an important role in the Allied campaign in East Africa, etc, etc). Regarding the specific suggestion here, I've never seen a historian state that Poland was a major contributor to the Allied forces and the editor proposing this change is not providing any such references. Their argument appears to be based on their own views, which are irrelevant. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Once again, if something is on Wikipedia it is also in external sources. You said it yourself. If it is so, then why can't we quote one source twice?

"Steven J. Zaloga wrote that "by the war's end the Polish Army was the fourth largest contingent of the Allied coalition after the armed forces of the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain.""

Steven J. Zaloga; Richard Hook (21 January 1982). The Polish Army 1939–45. Osprey Publishing. pp. 3–. ISBN 978-0-85045-417-8. Retrieved 6 March 2011.

Steven J. Zaloga (born February 1, 1952) is an American historian, defense consultant, and an author on military technology. He received a bachelor's degree cum laude at Union College and a masters degree at Columbia University, both in history.

If it is 4th contingent after USSR, USA and GB but before France and France is included in major forces, than sth. that is before France should be also the major force. I don't think that it is neccesarry to have it written directly in the source that "major allied forces were this and this".

If one source is too few than next ones:

Jerzy Jan Lerski (1996). Historical dictionary of Poland, 966-1945. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 18–. ISBN 978-0-313-26007-0. Retrieved 6 March 2011.

M. K. Dziewanowski in E. Garrison Walters (1988). The other Europe: Eastern Europe to 1945. Syracuse University Press. pp. 276–. ISBN 978-0-8156-2440-0. Retrieved 6 March 2011.

Is this enough external? --Dusi91 (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

One problem i see is that the Poland section of the article gives one sentence to the LWP -- that's where most of the Polish & Ukrainian soldiers actually were. If you want to use LWP numbers, then it should get 75% of the space. Rjensen (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Zaloga's comments on the size of Polish forces in 1945 does not state that Poland was a major member of the Allies: he's just saying that the Polish army was large. The Polish Governments were locked out of the main decision-making processes, etc. I have no idea what the other sources say. I'd note that various sources also state that Australia or Canada had the world's fourth largest air force in 1945 ([1]) and the Canadian Navy was apparently the third-largest in the world at this time ([2]) so if the same kinds of sources are used, then Canada and Australia are suddenly also major Allies. Which they weren't as they were also locked out of the decision making processes and their armed forces weren't huge. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are talking about decision making countries than neither China nor France don't deserve to be in Major Allies. Let's be honest. Decisions were made by big 3 - USA, USSR and GB. I am not even trying to compare Poland influamce with influance of this 3. Dyplomatic situation of Poland since USSR was attaced by Germany was very bad - I am aware of it. Anyway if you already expandimg the group of Major Allies with France and China than I see no reason why the Poland can't be there.

In case of Ukrainians in LWP I don't agree that they shouldn't be counted as Polish soldiers. Ukrainians, Belarusians, Jewish, Lithuanians they were also in army of Poland in 1939 and nobody thinks about excluding them from Polish imput. In British and French armies were a lot of people from the colonies. Why don't you try to exclude them from their armies? What about Soviet army? Would you also count for them onlu 75% because there were Ukrainians, Belarusians, Georgians, Kazachs etc.? Dusi91 (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that not very wise, recent movements of my goverment may have a bad influance ofr your sympathy for me. Anyway I can assure you I am far awy from supporting the currently rulling Parthy in Poland and I hope it does not influance our discussion.

Nick-D I am not doubting that Canda had a big navy and Australia had a big air force. Anyway I am talking about the whole size of the army, not separated parts. If they had armies bigger than Poland than I am not against puting them among the major allies as well. I am only noticing that Poland during most of the war had a bigger army than France and/or was more invloved in fight with Germans. This are facts that I hope you don't deny.

The second thing that I wish to notice is that both Poland and France had not too much to say about the post war order, during the war. The decision making was mad by USA, USSR and Britain.

In contrast to France Poland never surrundered and did not create the goverment that would colaborate with Germany.

Morover I gave you plenty of important (for the whole war result) succesces of Polish troops.

As you can see the military engagement of Poland was bigger than French and the diplomatic strength during the war was similar in Poland and France.

That is why I claim that Poland, not France or both of them should be among "Major affiliated state combatants".

My English is maybe not as perfect as yours but according to the dictionary: Major is greater in size, extent, or importance.

Poland was both important for the history of war (that some of you confirmed) and greater in size of the armies than most of the countries including France (that is confirmed by historical sources which is the most important for Wikipedia).

Having big armies that are actively engaged in fight automatically makes country important during the war.

So if we have two countries with relatively small diplomatic importance and one of them has bigger army than the other I do not understand why you see the second one as the major and the first one not.

As I already wrote the bad luck of Poland was getting into the soviet zone of influance. France in contrast got to American zone. Most of the western historians writing after the war did not have a matter to write that some small country given away to soviet zone of influance had such a big share in winning the war. First of all that would look bad that allies agreed to send a companion to the soviet influance zone. Also the participation in war of Polish troops in the west was a possibly hidden by western politicians just after the war in order to not to annoy Stalin (did you know for example that because of that none of Polish troops in the west took part in the victory parade?). Secondly Poland soon became the "enymy" of the west as the communist country so again there is no reason to gloryfy it. Moreover if someone didn't focus on studying the history of Polish armies during the WW 2 it could be hard to notice such a big participation - some of armies were in the west, some of them in teh east, some of them were guerillas. Neither USSR wanted to gloryfy its satelites too much. Different situation is with France that was not hidden behind the iron courtain and it got its occupation zone after the war and it got the place in UN security council. All of this makes it easier to notice the importance of the country, however it is importance after the war not during the war. Of course you can say that bigger importance of France than Poland after the war is caused by the bigger importance during the war but in fact this is caused by geographic place of both countries. If through 40 years after the war the authors were not writing about Poland as the major allay than it is hard to expect that the young ones will do this as most of them are petterning themselfs upon the older ones.

I don't think that it would be agianst the Wikipedia rules to place Poland in upper group as you agreed yourself that it was rather major than minor. Even if it was not directly written there are sources that are showing that Poland was important.

This is my opinion about this article and place of Poland and France in the structure that we have right now.

I am not optimist and I think that without a source where will be written that Poland was a major allay you will do not change the article.

However there are solutions that would not harm anyone and some of you already wrote about canceling this division. We could:

- put all countires in alphabetic order - put the countries in order of entering the war. As I saw this solution is made in most of articles about allies. - put countries as it is in the box on the right so: first big four (I would even put big three as China was joined later), than the occupied countries, than the rest.

None of this orders would harm anybody, noone could deny that some country should be in different place. Personally I would prefer the secon otpion. Eventually the third one. Dusi91 (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It is very clear from the sources and established terminology that there were 3 major powers (UK, USA, USSR) + France + China. So there is good reason to keep this distinction and the heading "Major" is justified, but we change the second heading from "Minor affiliated state combatants" to for instance "Other countries". Note for instance that India is merely listed as a "client state" despite the fact that India was one of the largest supplier of troops on the allied side. — Erik Jr. 19:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


Why is Turkey shown as an Ally on the map? It was neutral country during WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Turkey declared war on Germany in february 1945. Historical Dictionary --— Erik Jr. 21:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Correction necessary (France)[edit]

France: 3 September 1939[74] — On 22 June 1940, Vichy France under Marshal Pétain formally capitulated to Germany, and became neutral. This capitulation was denounced by General de Gaulle etc. etc.
It is true that France effectively became neutral, and even, in some cases, "collaborators". So, of course, it should be mentioned. Nevertheless, it should also be mentioned that not only did de Gaulle lead on France's cause in the war, but even Pétain's France, throughout its existence, de jure had the state of a partially (later fully) occupied enemy of Germany who had signed an armistice - and not that of a neutral state. So, even Pétain's France legally remained an Ally.--2001:4CA0:2FFF:1:0:0:0:11E (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you need a source for the conclusion that Petain’s France was among the Allied. A claim based on synthesis of existing information is OR. --— Erik Jr. 21:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)