Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Oslo Group

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

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

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

Finland

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

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

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

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

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

Finland, like Italy, defected to the Allies during the war and started fighting the Germans on September 4, 1944. See History_of_Finland#Finland in World War II. It should not be counted as one of the allies however, since no formal agreement was present. --Orzetto 13:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Finland actually fought the Germans, while I can easily ID several so called "Allies" that made the official aggrement but did not lift even half of a finger to fight (Turkey, Nicaragua, and Saudi Arabia, I mean YOU). If anything, the Finns helped crush Hitler and the facists in Finland and Norway, and later unofficially fought in mainland Europe East and West Fronts. Even one freecking battle was more than the "Allies" I mentioned above ever did, so if these no-shows are allowed to be on the list I cannot possibly see any reason whatsoever why Finland cannot be on it. Also, as for the "did not sign" excuse, the North Vietnamese never got around to declaring war officially on the US but still they fought America fiercly. ELV

Portugal

I find it strange and inappropriate that Portugal is listed as an unofficial ally, as YES, the Macao and Timor campaigns did see SOME Portugese nationals (primarily CIVILIANS) fighting alsongside the allies against the Japanese, these instances were not backed by Salazar's Facist regime and were the EXCEPTION, not the RULE. The Portugese were known for sending large amounts of "voulanteers" to fight for Germany, many of whom were not only in the Eastern Front but also in North Africa, Italy, the Balkens, France and the Benelux (after which Salazar officially "cut ties" with said troops) and some even fought in the final, dying days of the Reich in Centeral Europe. Portugal also gave military "advisors" to the Germans (primarily in Yugoslavia) under the pretext of "combating the spread of Anarchy in Europe." As late as mid June 1944 the Portugese forces (as well as Spanish) participated in joint traning manuvers witht the Germans. Considering these facts, I feel that the inclusion of Portugal into this list is inappopriate and inaccurate. If you wish to talk about the LOCAL resistence to Japan in Timor and Macao, fine by me, but keep in mind that the rebels were not supported and were in fact condemned by the Portugese Government. ELV

Sweden

Question:

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

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

To be fair, the De havilland Mosquitoes in BOAC markings AND camoflage regularly flown into and out of Sweden as ball bearing mules were probably stretching the boundaries of neutrality.

USSR

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

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

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

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

Soviet Union invaded Poland with Nazi Germany in September 1939.

It is not true that:

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

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

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

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

--Lysy ^(talk) 19:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

This is an ABC.

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

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

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

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

I'm glad that you support the 'de jure' position, Nixer. I think it closes then the question if Finland was axis ally, as there was no alliance treaty so Finland wasn't allied by 'de jure' with Germany. Also I like to find some sources to your claims how Finnish government was pro-fascist and reactionist. (Anti-Soviet it was, although it didn't prevent it to sign non-aggression pact with USSR.)--Whiskey 10:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when do you call invasion - "protecting" ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um, any way round, surely the USSR's entry to WWII should be dated to it's invasion of the Polish rump state, and not the German invasion of the USSR?

I am sorry, but in case you did not notice, the Finns were not facists. As a matter of fact, the Finns HATED the facists. As a matter of fact, I do believe that there are some records about German equipment transferred to the Russians in the Winter War. The main reason that the Finns sided with the Germans was due to Stalin's two invasions of Finland and after Hitler's costly but sucessful invasion of Denmark and Norway, Finland was cut off from the Western Allies, the one faction in the war the Finns felt any real comradeship with. For instince, Finland's alliance with Hitler was like the West's alliance with Stalin; a pact made between people who loath eachothers guts who make a shakey alliance based on a immenent mutual powerful enemy that will be broken at the earliest oppertunity possible. Take a look at what the Finns did to the Germans in Lapland and you do not see two facists fighting each other. You see a Democracy that grudgedly allied with a dictatorship fighting said dictatorship. After this the Finns joined the Western Allies and served with distinction in the West. The Russians were not "protecting" Finland or Poland! THey were launching an invasion riddled with atrocities and blood! The Soviets had already been preparing to move into Poland when the Germans invaded, and invade they did! The all across Eastern Poland Soviet and Polish forces fought each other to the death in a campaign coordinated with the German one, and in Centeral Poland the Germans and the Russians helped each other crush the surviving Polish resistence in the same battles! That is invasion, not protection, as one person claimed it was. Do Protectors commit horrific atrocities on those they are protecting, like the Soviets commited Katyn Forest agianst Polish officers? Are protectors usually resisted violently by those that they claim they are protecting? Do Protectors of Nation A aid Nation X that is invading Nation A and do they do so openly and puplically, like from Stalin's own mouth (note, this is the gist of it, I forgot the exact words): "One kick from Nazi Germany on one side, The Second one from the Soviet Union on the other, and there is nothing left of this atrocious child of Versailles."? The Soviets need to be at least mentioned as being Axis members in Poland before Barbarossa. ELV

Polish partisans?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balcer 18:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the preamble of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact:

_____

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

_____

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

_____

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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