Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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. --Lysy ^(talk) 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. --Lysy ^(talk) 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 ? --Lysy ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia.--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. --Lysy ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia: 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/wiki/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?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nixer (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 September 2005.

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 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)

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. --Lysy ^(talk) 07:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Chile

I'm a chilean, i'm pretty confident, and i have some history books to confirm it, that Chile was a neutral country on WWII, and did not joined the allies. Any one who can confirmit and maybe give some links -i did't found them- so the entry can be corrected, would be much appreciated.

I dont think they declared war on Germany, but they declared war on Japan oon April 11, 1945 according to [1] --Astrokey44 08:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ireland

Though many knowledgeable people know that Érie is the Irish name for Ireland, I would have to say that this is not common knowledge. My name is Erin (though spelled differently), and I personally can't believe that so many people are unaware of the fact that Erin is also another name for Ireland, and granted, my viewpoint on this subject is biased, but I thought this was rather common knowledge as well. Not to mention the fact that I've met other Erin's who don't even know what their name means, and plenty more people who are unaware that there is a not only a difference in spelling and gender "assignment," between Erin and Aaron, but also different origins and meanings. So, I don't think it will take away from the article to change Érie to Ireland, and if there are people who have an issue with the change, there should be at least some kind of aside that indicates that Érie is Ireland. I followed the Érie link, and found the following information:

"The name was given in Article 4 of the 1937 Irish constitution to the Irish state, created under the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, which was known between 1922 and 1937 as the Irish Free State. Article 4 stated that: "The name of the state is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."

So, even though the state was officially called Érie in Irish Gaelic, it was called Ireland in English, which is what this article is written in. Afterall, Germany is not referred to as Deutschland in this article, nor Poland Polska, nor Italy Italia, and there are several more countries whose names are different from the English language equivalent.

The problem is both geographical and historical. There are two different states within the island of Ireland and one was at war in 1939-45 and the other wasn't. Éire is used to denote the southern Irish state between 1937 and 1949, when the southern Irish state was still officially a member of the Commonwealth and was not yet a republic. If we used "Ireland", it could be misunderstood as including Northern Ireland, which was at war in 1939-45. None of the names which have been given to the successive states in southern Ireland apply to 1939-45, except Éire. Grant65 (Talk) 00:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Iceland, too

Technically, Iceland was "occupied by the Allies in 1940" doesn't make any sense. What Allies? France (neither Third Republic, Vichy, or Free French) ever occupied Iceland; Denmarck was out of the War very early, and I don't think it would be correct to say Denmarck ever "occupied" Iceland; the United States was not an "Ally" in 1940. And the USSR was neither an Ally in 1940, nor ever occupied Iceland.

With a little study, what you may find is Great Britain was using ports in Iceland to patrol the North Atlantic, but after the Fall of France, "in their Finest Hour" when Britain stood alone, Britain relinquished ports & the U.S. took over patrolling the North Atlantic to facilitiate Lend Lease aid to Britain. Hence, by October 1941 (two months before Pearl Harbor) the U.S. was at War with Germany based upon loss of life of US Armed Services by German U-boats.

This little phrase needs a little study & clarity. Thanks. nobs 02:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the documentation on Iceland [2]. This is an important point, though little known & often overlooked. Both technically and factually, a state of war existed between the US & Germany by October 1941. Therefore, the formal declaration of war on Dec. 8 1941 against Japan, and Hitler's subsequent declaration on the US days later, are not the starting points of US involvement in WWII. We discussed a parallel example earlier; Poland was invaded by the USSR, yet the Polish government, already in a state of emergency, did not issue a formal piece of paper declaring war. Now, 65 years later, appologists for the USSR deny Poland & the USSR were ever at war with each other. Pure bullshit. A war begins at the point of hostilities & bloodshed, not at the point of bureaucratic paper shuffling. nobs 16:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

- note in passing - A Norwegian manned floatplane squadron with Norwegian air force machines continued to operate out of Iceland during the period in question. yes, it was a "brackets" squardon of the RAF.

British crown colonies

Someone has just removed Newfoundland's flag. I can see why, it was effectively a crown colony under direct rule by Britain at the time. However, I think it is important to reflect the huge, voluntary contribution and sacrifices made by the people of Commonwealth countries under direct rule, notably British India, somewhere in the article. Grant65 (Talk) 00:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Greenland

As I know, Greenland participated in WWII on Allies side with airdromes and some patrol forces even when Denmark capitulated.--Nixer 08:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems Greenland was occupied by the US on April 9, 1941.[3] (I also found this interesting article "Arctic Combat: The Capture of the German Naval Auxiliary Externsteine by the Coast Guard Icebreakers Eastwind & Southwind in Greenland, 1944".[4] It seems the Kriegsmarine still managed to have covert weather stations on Greenland between 1942 and 1944.) Grant65 (Talk) 10:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Greenland was technically speaking a group of Danish colonies at the time. On 9 April 1940, Germany occupied Denmark and shortly after, the British occupied the Faroe Islands and Iceland and the Americans Greenland. The British later transferred control of Iceland to the Americans, at a time when the U.S. had still not joined the war. Denmark never had time to declare war on Germany on 9 April due to the rapid occupation of the poorly-armed country and officially both the Germans and Danish talked of a so-called "Peace occupation" (Danish: fredsbesættelse). It was a concept pretty much developed in the Danish foreign office in the late 1930s. Regarding Greenland, the Danish envoy (ambassador) to the United States, Henrik Kauffmann signed a treaty with the U.S. authorising the U.S. to defend Greenland and construct military stations there. In fact minor clashes took place in East Greenland late in the war (1944 I believe). Kauffmann was supported in this decision by the Danish diplomats in the United States and the local authorities in Greenland. Signing this treaty "in the name of the King" was a clear violation of his diplomatic powers but Kauffmann argued that he wouldn't receive orders from an occupied Copenhagen. In Denmark, he was tried with high treason in absentia and dismissed, a verdict he ignored. The Danish cabinet remained in office until 29 August 1943 when it officially handed its letter of resignation to King Christian X. Since he never officially accepted it, the government remained functioning de jure until the end of the war, but this is a technicality. In reality all day-to-day business had been handed over to the Permanent Secretaries, each effectively running his own ministry. The Germans ran the rest of the country. Following the Liberation of Denmark on 4-5 May 1945, the reconvened Parliament ratified the treaty signed by Kauffmann and annulled the sentence against him. He joined the Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio a few days later. I am afraid this story *is* pretty longhaired. Even as a Dane, I wouldn't know where to properly position Denmark in this table, so perhaps it is better to leave it all out? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As I read from a Niels Bohr's biography, there was in fact declaration of war between Denmark and Germany and even some shooting (but much after the occupation itself).--Nixer 11:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I was about to write a reply here when I realized it would get pretty long. I have copied this thread and posted the reply on Talk:Occupation_of_Denmark#Declaration_of_war_against_Germany.3F Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of allies

How many Allies of World War II were there? 44, as claimed in Bretton Woods system, or 45, as claimed in United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference? --Art Carlson 15:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

India/Commonwealth

In spite of what I've said previously, I was unable to find any record of a separate declaration of war by India and whereas Newfoundland and Nepal appear to have had some degree of formal political independence, India had none. There is also plenty of evidence of indifference (or hostility) to the war with Germany by Indian nationalists. So I don't think including the flag of India (even if it is the British regime's flag), conveys the right impression.Grant65 | Talk 09:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Indian nationalists, led by Gandhi, supported Britain - just because India was a colony of Britian at the time, should the fact that millions volunteered without pressure to fight for the Allies be discounted? Indian soldiers won 30 Victoria crosses, and with or without an autonomous capability to decalre war, the lands of India, if not Allied, may have tipped the entire balance of power in asia. I think India deserves honorary mention, and an explination of this situation should be provided, lest this contribution be forgotton. Vastu 00:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that India has it's own seperate heading but the rest of the commonwealth gets one bulk heading? Countries like Canada made a big impact on the war too, but it seems they have been forgoten. MattD 6, August 2006

I'm inclined to agree with Matt. India's contibution was bigger than that of other Commonwealth countries, but the article is primarily about international political alliances. There is too much detail about India's effort in the article at present. I will move the bulk of it to Participants in World War II. Grant65 | Talk 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Allies

"The group of countries known as the Allies of World War II came together as World War II unfolded and progressed."

It doesn't really give a definition of the allies, seeing as it is the first sentence. Should we change this? ~The Red Baron

How would you propose to define them? Grant65 | Talk 06:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "The group of countries known as the Allies of World War II came together and fought the Axis Powers as World War II unfolded and progressed."

It's a bit long, but it gives a more accurate definition. And yes, some parts of it has to be cut off. ~The Red Baron

How about we take the intro from the Axis powers and change it to reflect the Allied powers. Axis intro paragraph:

 The Axis Powers were those nations opposed to the Allies during the Second World War. 
 The three major Axis Powers, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, referred 
 to themselves as the "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis". At their zenith, the Axis Powers ruled 
 empires that dominated large parts of Europe, Asia and the Pacific Ocean, but the Second 
 World War ended with their total defeat. Like the Allies, membership of the Axis was fluid, 
 and some nations entered and later left the Axis during the course of the war.

I'm going to take the Axis' first sentence and apply it here. Anyone willing to under take making more of this? Thmars10 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Second East Turkestan Republic

According to the article Second East Turkestan Republic, the Second East Turkestan Republic was independent from China at this time, but on the map it is a part of China.--Fox Mccloud 17:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Who started it?

The original allies were the states that declared war on Nazi Germany in September of 1939, thus starting World War II.

I laughed out loud when I read this. My mind went straight to Basil Fawlty: "You started it... You invaded Poland!".

I understand the logic of the statement: the Nazis marched into Poland on 1st September 1939 and it became immediately obvious that nothing was going to stop them taking over. At that point, we might have had "the Nazi invasion of Poland" but we didn't yet have WWII. Had France and Britain ho-hummed, it's conceivable that WWII might not have happened (well, not that month anyway). So, strictly speaking the original line is correct - the war only began "officially" when France and Britain declared it so two days later.

However, if you pretend you are a Martian and know nothing of WWII, on reading the above quote, you'd get the impression that there was dear old, peace-loving Nazi Germany, minding its own business, when along came these nasty Allies and started a war on its ass!

It is an interesting case of a perfectly factual sentence conveying completely the wrong impression. I'm not certain how best to fix it (without ponderously loading it with subordinate clauses), however I think the weakness is in the word "starting". How about re-casting it thus:

The original allies were the states that declared war on Nazi Germany following the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 --Oscar Bravo 15:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 Whatever happened to the page with the flags of all the allies in large?

Nepal Bhutan

Were Nepal and Bhutan neutral? This article says that Nepal declared war in 1939, but this 'faq'[5] says that Nepal was neutral. They're wrong about Paraguay though so Im not sure how reliable it is --Astrokey44 08:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Romania

A Romanian I knew claimed that they had fought on the Allied side before being invaded, and so it was only for political reasons that they were counted among the losers of the war. It appears this must be true for some Romanians, at least. The article says parts were annexed by USSR while still allied with Germany, so their defense at that stage was fighting on the Allied side. Then, when Germany attacked USSR, the Romanians in the parts occupied by USSR became on the Allied side again. At least it seems they didn't willingly attack anyone without provocation. David R. Ingham 01:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The USSR was not allied with Germany.--Nixer 08:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

States that did not declare war after being attacked by Axis forces

On consideration, I think that these should be removed from the list of Allies. Denmark is the prime example (see Occupation of Denmark). There was clearly continuity of the pre-war Danish government and the govt of occupied Denmark. It seems like a harsh judgement on the Danes who did fight in other Allied forces, and the 16 or so who died in 1940, but I believe it is historically accurate.

By contrast, the governments of the other members of the Oslo Group either went into exile or were dissolved -- Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.

See also Romania during World War II. The Romanian state did not actually declare war against the Axis side until 1944, which is when we have it joining the Allies. That is only correct way to handle such cases I think. Grant65 | Talk 03:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Danes find the situation confusing as well. The cabinet did of course resign on 29 August 1943 after a series of strikes on Jutland / Funen, but this only proves that popular opinion was against the German presence (which it had been all along, only the situation was nearing a point of no return.) However, I can find no documentation for a German declaration of war, and I know for sure that Denmark did not declare war on Germany. Unfortunately, I can't find the actual text of the German ultimatum of 28 August. I noticed that one Danish internet page claimed that a German proclamation of 29 August announced that both King and government had been deposed, but I'd like to see more documentation for this one since the Germans took no action was against either, so one second-class source for a statement like this is not good enough. Furthermore, Danish books don't mention an actual state of war, only - pretty much - that the government collapsed. The British had their strong doubts as well. When Montgomery crossed the Danish border, he brought with him a British military government to be installed in Denmark. This story only became widely known a few years ago since Montgomery apparently must have changed his mind. The military government was never installed. Danes normally say that the only reason Denmark was (ultimately) considered to be an allied nation (or close to) was because of the activities of the Resistance. The very enthusiastic welcome given to the British troops probably was probably also influential. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I visited Copenhagen (in 1992) and remember seeing, in a museum, statistics on the Danes who fought with other Allied forces. But then there are the SS volunteers, the absence of a government in exile, etc. Would anyone object if we remove Denmark from the main list, and have a short, separate paragraph briefly explaining it's unusual situation, in the "Oslo Group" section, with a link to the Occupation of Denmark article? Grant65 | Talk 08:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like the Museum of Danish Resistance :) It is quite correct that Danes fought on both sides of the war. The volunteers fighting for Germany claimed after the war that the cabinet had sanctioned German recruitment in Denmark (and my own POV on this one is that they were right in this interpretation.) The government also repeatedly made announcements condemning sabotage actions. However, I would also like to stress that Danish sailors served (and died) on British ships during the war and that the number of people involved here and in the resistance movement is higher than the similar number on the German side. Furthermore, the Danish public was generally opposed to the German precense in Denmark - e.g. the Frikorps Danmark volunteers were pretty disappointed by the less-than-friendly welcome they received when returning to Denmark on leave in 1942 (43?). But it is also true that the Allies didn't have a positive view of Denmark before the wave of strikes in 1943. In legal terms, your conclusion is all too correct, and I'll support your suggestion. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Here's to Anders Lassen and the others. Grant65 | Talk 15:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Btw, I have investigated the German recruitment business in Denmark further prompted by some comments on Talk:Axis Powers. Again, I discovered that the truth was more complex than it seemed at first. I already knew that the Danish government had been twisting its hands when faced with the Anti-Commintern Pact business, but I had never noticed the finer details in this decision, nor that the government expressly avoided to sanction the creation of Frikorps Danmark as such, expressly wording its proclamation to only deal with the fact that Kryssing was taking command of a unit. It might seem like splitting hairs, but when I read the Danish text, it does look like the cabinet was trying to weigh its words carefully. Well, I normally don't deal with WWII material, so I'll have to use this as an excuse for my previous lack of knowledge about the fouding of this corps. You might find my post there interesting (unfortunately, it became rather long). Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)