Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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. --Lysy ^(talk) 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. Lysy 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. Lysy 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 Lysy, 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. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Lysy 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. --Lysy ^(talk) 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". --Lysy ^(talk) 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. --Lysy ^(talk) 22:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I will take Lysy'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. --Lysy ^(talk) 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 ? --Lysy ^(talk) 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. --Lysy ^(talk) 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 [1]; 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. --Lysy ^(talk) 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)