Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Former Axis powers or co-belligerents: why is USSR not here?

We list currently Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland. But why not USSR? Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Soviet invasion of Poland, anyone? It was a brief period, but in September-October 1939 Soviet acted as a German ally against Poland, as much as later this was airbrushed over by various parties. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is also presented in the Axis Powers article.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

A note-tag on the Soviet Union in the "Big 3" section mentioning its previous cooperation with Germany against Poland is probably clearer/smoother than to double-list it in / move it to the "former Axis" section --Havsjö (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Havsjö, Almost nobody will read the note. Double listing is not ideal either, I concur. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Almost nobody will read the note" What do you base this statement on? A goldfish attention span? --Havsjö (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I also see no serious reason for double listing, especially taking into account that no country is listed twice in this infobox. All countries listed as ex-Axis or co-belligerents are correctly listed in this subcategory because their contribution to the Axis war efforts was much greater than their role as the Allies (except probably for Iraq). In the Soviet Union case, its role during the Invasion of Poland was negligible as compared to its subsequent contribution into the Allied war efforts, so the footnote is quite sufficient.

Moreover, I find the Soviet Union section totally unsatisfactory: it makes a huge stress on the period of Nazi-Soviet rapprochement, whereas all previous (Soviet-Nazi tensions, anti-Comintern pack as a seed for future Axis formation, Spanish civil war, Soviet opposition to Munich and occupation of Czechoslovakia) and subsequent (Soviet role during 1941-45) events are almost totally ignored. I am going to rewrite that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, "In the Soviet Union case, its role during the Invasion of Poland was negligible as compared to its subsequent contribution into the Allied war efforts". That's speculation. If the USSR did not invade Poland, maybe Poland would have held out until the promised French-British relief effort and the war would have ended in 1940 without becoming global. By that logic it was the USSR invasion which led to the escalation of this local war into a global one. Who knows? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Paul, a short-term arrangement, a non-aggression pact, is not significant. The USSR is not the same as Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC) strike globally banned sock puppet

Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent. Both make the opposite point, that the Axis was opposed to the Soviet Union, communism, and the Comintern from 1936.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC) strike globally banned sock puppet

These are tertiary sources. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. And as pointed out elsewhere, numerous historians, political scientists and Holocaust scholars refer to the Soviet Union in the 1939-1941 period as "allies" or "co-belligerents" (mostly as "allies", the "co-belligerents" shows up less often but that term has always been a sort of Wikipedia-specific "compromise"). Volunteer Marek 18:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

All of that are speculations. Had Soviet invasion been a really serious factor that affected Allied decision to refrain from any military actions against Germany, that would be widely and repeatedly cited in all Western books about WWII. However, even Churchill does not say so. In contrast, he, as well as many contemporary observers who didn't know about a secret protocol, saw the Soviet move to Curson line quite natural in that situation. I agree that the modern nationalist Polish discourse blames USSR and Nazi Germany in WWII outbreak in approximately the same proportion, but all of that has virtually no support from the Western scholarly community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "speculations". Sources say "allies" when referring to Nazi Germany and Soviet Union in the period 1939-1941. There's nothing speculative here. Volunteer Marek 00:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That was more a response to Piotrus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I took a liberty to restore a status quo ante bellum editorial. We all are experienced editors, let's talk first. As I already explained, the viewpoint on the role of the USSR in WWII that is currently very popular in Poland and some other Central European countries seems overrepresentid on Wikipedia pages. I found it non-neutral, and I propose to think about restoring a balance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but you actually restored a version from an editor with very few edits [1] who made a highly POV edit that kicked off this round of this perennial dispute. If we're gonna go back to "status quo ante bellum" then that is obviously not the version we want. Volunteer Marek 00:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

VM and Piotrus, with due respect, your approach and your edit summaries are far from perfect. If you believe some account is suspicious, request for CU, othehrwise, please, treat them in the same way as all other good faith users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether that account is suspicious or not is of secondary importance. The thing is, if you're going to claim to be restoring a version "status quo" then you need to restore the actual status quo version and not one right after a recent edit which introduced info you like. Volunteer Marek 01:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

VP, please be logical. As far as i understand, the current conflict is about the footnote about the USSR. A previous discussion (Big three vs Four Policemen, and the order) had been resolved successfully, and there is no need to conflate the previously resolved issue with the new conflict.

With regard to a suspicious account, that was a primary argument in your edit summary: if this issue is of secondary importance, why do you cite it as a reason?

Finally, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is a personal attack, and your (and this) edit summary can be considered as such accusations. I think, being very experienced users you are expected to refrain from that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, If there problem is with the footnote only, why did you revert my changes to the text of the Soviet section? Particularly as half of that edit was acting on what you said "I find the Soviet Union section totally unsatisfactory: it makes a huge stress on the period of Nazi-Soviet rapprochement...". My edit was significantly inspired by your comments above (and hence I removed what I saw as an off topic digression). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I haven't noticed them. Anyway, I would prefer we all to refrain from editing until our discussion came to some logical end.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, WP:DUCK is obvious here. I don't know whose sock it is but we can all tell one when we see it. Let's not empower shady players like that, eh? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, accusation of sockpuppetry is a serious accusation, and it should be made in a different place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Since some people are trying to promote historical revisionism through sophistry we might as well include Poland as an Axis member. Further supporting evidence for my argument can be found here.--Catlemur (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Catlemur, Please, no straw man arguments. A simple difference is whether someone actually invaded and waged war (military operations) against another party or not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed to double listing or other toying with USSR in the infobox Piotrus, Poland issued an ultimatum to Czechoslovakia, invaded, clashed with the defenders and then annexed a part of its territory at the same time as Nazi Germany did. This according to your own definition makes Poland an Axis co-belligerent. You are ignoring the Soviet contribution to the Second Sino-Japanese War and Spanish Civil War, the signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact and the assistance the Soviets gave to countless political refugees from Axis countries. Since there is no way you could be ignorant of those facts, that means that you purposefully advancing a Polish nationalist agenda through historical revisionism.--Catlemur (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Catlemur.

1) Please strike your personal attack above and false accusations about other editors.

2) Please refrain from speaking for others and saying what their "definition" is.

3) Refrain from talking about editors, focus on content.

If you don't stop this kind of behavior I am not going to hesitate to report you because it's exactly this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that makes this area so toxic to edit in. Volunteer Marek 15:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The very same person I supposedly personaly attacked, accused someone of being a sockpuppet with 0 proof to back it up, which is imho far worse than what I said. Piotrus said: "A simple difference is whether someone actually invaded and waged war." So I provided an example of Poland being an Axis co-belligerent based on his definition of what a co-belligerent is. Since you are so focused on content why don't you rebuke my argument instead of trying to intimidate me?--Catlemur (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If you think that this person did something wrong then report them. Don't try to use it as an excuse for your own behavior. Seriously, strike that personal attack. Volunteer Marek 15:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to address the points I made about Polish co-belligerence in Czechoslovakia? Further proof can be found in the secret talks Poland and Nazi Germany held about Lithuania and their respective 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania and 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania.--Catlemur (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as you strike your personal attack. What's the point of engaging in discussion with someone who resorts to personal insults? Unlikely to be productive and probably a waste of time. Volunteer Marek 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You have essentially lost the argument and indirectly proved my point. You are cool with people making baseless sock puppet allegations because they have the same POV as you but if someone that disagrees with you does something you don't like you refuse to even engage with them. You are not in a position to dictate who can or cannot participate in this discussion.--Catlemur (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Catlemur, And you are in no position to expect anyone to engage with you with such an aggressive attitude. If your goal is to win by having the last word since others here follow WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF and won't want to engage in a tit-for-tat series of personal attacks (flaming) with you, congratulations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I raised a valid point which is being ignored because I don't want to submit to an arbitrary list of demands. The very thing he is doing contradicts WP:CIV which says "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors". Do not link to a set of guidelines when you are in the active process of violating them.--Catlemur (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed to double listing or other toying with USSR in the infobox - An infobox is supposed to streamline information. As best broadly understood in the context of the entire war, categorizing the USSR as one of the big three suffices. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: If you want to say Soviet Union as axis of ww2 or co-belligerent of Axis that time, then pls give a persuasion about Battles of Khalkhin Gol which was concurrent battle with Battle of Poland and Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina which was conflicts between Kingdom of Romania and Soviet Union. Also remember that Soviet Union supported Republic of China when Second Sino-Japanese War occured. From 1939 to 1941, USSR didn't have consistent policy toward Axis power, so neither axis power or co-belligerent fits with situation and status of Soviet Union -- Wendylove (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

웬디러비, You make a good point about the complex Soviet position in that period. But the simple fact that it co-invaded Poland makes it a co-belligerent of Axis in that time, which is not exclusive to it also being a co-belligerent of the Allies through its actions in China. I am frankly not sure where their actions in the Balkans could even be located in this spectrum. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I think it is a good moment to play my lovely game: "naive Wikipedian". The rules are simple: we assume each of us knows nothing about the subject, and using a neutral search phrase(s) we are trying to find as many as possible sources in google scholar and/or jstor that tell about the USSR in 1939. Then we will compare quality of our sources, discuss neutrality in our keywords choice, and compare what each of those sources say. One additional condition: refrain from editing the article until the game ended. Who wants to play with me?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• My turn: Using this search phrase Soviet Union Nazi germany 1939 pact, I got a list that contains sources, which I, by and large, already know, and which shaped my understanding of the 1939 history. I think this set of keywords is pretty neutral, and I believe any user with no previous knowledge of this subject would obtain the same set of sources. That means if we are not going to push some specific POV, this set of sources is nearly ideal.

In connection to that, I am asking if anybody can point at any problem with my search procedure? Maybe, you can propose a differenty set of keywords?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, First Google Scholar hit for "USSR in 1939": To storm the Arctic: Soviet polar exploration and public visions of nature in the USSR, 1932-1939. How is this relevant to the issue here? Your proposed search term is too narrow and not really relevant here (instead, it is about 1939 in the Soviet Union). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Click at the link I already provided: the first hit is this, the second is this, the third is this, and the fourth is that. All of them are relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, Relevant for what? Outside [2] this mentioning the word "alliance" ("On the other hand, Hitler regarded the "alliance" with the USSR to be limited .."). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I probably need to elaborate more on that. If you want to find sources confirming that USSR was a German ally, you will probably find a significant number of them. If you want to find sources saying that USSR was not a German ally, your search will also be successful. Our goal is different: to show how that issue is described in scholarly literature. To do that, the best way is to pretend we know nothing about that (i.e. to imagine we are totally ignorant), and to do a naive search to answer the following question:

I've just learned that some states called USSR and Nazi Germany existed in 1939. How their relationships were developing in 1930s?

The answer to this question will give us a maximally neutral way to describe Nazi-Soviet relations on the eve of WWII: thus, if majority of sources do not write about Nazi-Soviet alliance and use different words instead, that means the Nazi-Soviet alliance concept is not a part of a mainstream discourse (I do not claim that, because I haven't finished the analysis of sources).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, Given your search term includes the term 'pact' I think you results will be very skewed. And without it, I don't know what relevance to WWII can we get from articles like the cited one about artic exploration. Futher, don't you think that alliance is a colloquial term, not particularly endorsed by scholars who looked into this more deeply, and co-belligerents makes more sense? Sometimes the most common term is not actually the best to focus on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to propose your own keywords. I believe Nazi soviet relations 1939 is a superneutral set, but it gives roughly similar results. In general, my approach consists not in selecting a single set of keywords, but various sets. And that is just a starting point. After that, you check the sources those sources cite, and you continue searching until you start getting the same sources again and again. That demonstrates that your search procedure has converged. Just try it, it really works.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

further discussion (non relevant to the previous section)

The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact. The Polish government, who fled from Poland during the German invasion, tried to push the notion that the Soviet Union acted against the Allies, but the Allies and the international community would have none of it. Churchill himself welcomed the Soviet move, saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail." https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC) strike globally banned sock puppet

How about you provide the entire quote as well as the text by the author that accompanies it?

Also, no one ever said that SU was part of the Axis Pact (though Stalin DID agree to join the Tripartite Pact, although at that point Hitler changed his mind). Volunteer Marek 08:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

VM, your description contradicts to what Roberts says about that. He writes that Molotov came to Berlin in response to Ribbentrop's invitation, and he and Hitler had serious disagreements about conditions of Soviet membership in the Axis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Erin Vaxx, Indeed. We are all in agreement that "The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact". We should distinguish between the Tripartite Pact powers (Germany, Japan and Italy), states that adhered to the Tripartite Pact (Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia), and co-belligerent states (Finland, Iraq, Thailand, France in its Vichy incarnation, and the Soviet Union). Co-beligerence means attaching the same target as another country but without an official alliance. Is anyone here disputing the fact that both Germany and USSR invaded Poland in 1939? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

When the Soviet Union entered Poland, the Polish government and military were in a state of collapse. The forlorn hope of a last stand at the Romanian border was dashed by Romania caving in to German demands on September 14th.--Astral Leap (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC) strike globally banned sock puppet

The status of Poland at the time and the ongoing fighting should not matter at all. In fact that part was not even discussed at the start of this chain of discussion. The USSR did invade Poland while acting in concert with the NG. The USSR did annex parts of Poland. How the USSR chose to rationalize its actions is irrelevant. How those events - and how that relates to the USSR's status when it did fight for the same goals as the NG - is to be represented is the issue here, not if it happened (as it did). - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I want to say that we should think about Soviet Union's position by "before 1941" and "after 1941". It seems that everyone agrees that since 1941, Soviet Union is Allies of WW2. But, before 1941, Soviet Union's situation was very complex. As I see, many of user who support that USSR was Axis or pro-Axis are talking about Invasion of Poland which occurred in September 1939. Of course USSR cooperated with Germany at that ti,e. But why don't you guys mention about Battle of Khalkhin Gol which occurred concurrently in September 1939? Why nobody mentions about Soviet Invasion of Romania in 1940 or Soviet Volunteer Group? I think those who insist that USSR was Axis just narrow their views to Invasion of Poland. If you see other concurrent conflicts which Soviet Union is connected with other Axis country, you cannot say Soviet Union was not a country to be Axis power or pro-Axis. -- Wendylove (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@웬디러비: We have reliable sources which say that Soviet Union was an ally or co-belligerent with Nazi Germany in 1939-1941. I guess the question is to what extent that is equivalent to saying that the Soviet Union was an ally or co-belligerent with Axis Powers. Obviously they were not allies with Japan. If I'm not mistaken this is actually why the phrase "co-belligerent" was chosen rather than the phrase "ally" (this is buried in the archives of related articles).

I think it's important that we acknowledge the complex situation of the Soviet Union here somehow. It does no service to our readers to just ignore it completely and pretend that the Soviet Union was always on the side of THE Allies. That's simply historically inaccurate. I am open to ideas of how to do this properly in a way that reflects sources. Volunteer Marek 16:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Which is why we can't say it in the infobox, its far to complex forc that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

See, that's actually a plausible argument. I disagree with it, but I can understand it (esp. since I don't particularly care for infoboxes). Perhaps the best way to figure out what to do with the infobox is to first figure out what to write in the body of the article. Any suggestions? Volunteer Marek 18:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Axis pact (tripartite pact) was not signed until September 1940. Pact of Steel (which did not involve Japan) was signed in May 1939. The main thing that did exist was the Anti-Comintern Pact (which with its secret protocol, that only affected Germany and Japan and not other signatories, was at best a defensive pact against the USSR) of 1936. So why would the Khalkin Gol influence anything? As to Romania... Romania signed tripartite pact in November 1940 - Soviet occupation (and annexation) took place in July 1940. So again, at the time Romania was not a member. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The USSR had some agreements with the NAzis, they were not part of the Axis and apart from the invasion of Poland did not militarily cooperate with them. The bulk of sources I have seen do not list them as an Axis power, so neither should we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The discussion is NOT about whether USSR should be listed as an Axis Power. No one is proposing that. Volunteer Marek 15:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nor were they a co-beligerant as they were not at war with Britain or France.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Finland was never at war against the USA (or France) so per that logic it can not have been co-belligerent or an axis power either. You do understand that you can not have your cake and eat it too. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I do, two wrongs do not make a right. Moreover, Finland was never an allied power, so its not quite analogous issue is that the USSR was one of the major allied powers, and was only a Germans ally for less than a month (and not the 4 years Finland was). But its also a different issue anyway. If you want to nominate Finaldn for removal fine, make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

They cooperated and provided Nazi Germany with economic and strategic assistance (going so far as to coordinate with the Gestapo the crushing of local resistance movements) as late as November 1940, so quite a bit longer than "less than a month". Volunteer Marek 18:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

And still a lot less than 4 years.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If you want to put USSR on Axis power, then you should not emphasize only Nazi Germany. Axis power consists of Japan, Italy, Germany and some countries including Romania, Bulgaria, and etc. Although it cooperated with Germans for short time, but that doesn't mean it has aligned with Axis power. Look what USSR did to whole Axis power from 1939 to 1941. No consistent policy, just broaden their territory, that's all. By your theory, then Nazi Germany should put on Allied side because they had economic and military support during Sino-Japanese War..... You guys say you are not trying to say Soviet Union as Axis power, but what you summarize and what you tell to other who opposite your argument makes me feel that you insist on "USSR is Axis power" -- Wendylove (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the difficulty is to capture the fact that USSR was allied with Nazi Germany without saying that it was allied with Axis Powers. We *do* want to avoid making it look like in 1939-1941 there were two clearly denominated immutable unchanging blocks as if this was the kids' "Axis & Allies" board game. That would be ahistorical and misleading. Volunteer Marek 07:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Roughly a year after the invasion USSR mass murdered tens of thousands of Polish POV (members of Allied army) in Katyn massacre (see also Gestapo–NKVD conferences). So we can look at a year-long range of clearly hostile actions... just saying, it's not just the '39 invasion that we are dealing with, but early 1940 fits here as well, roughly, we have one year span of coordinated military activities followed by coordinated operations against Polish resistance and prisoners (including POWs). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The Katyn massacre was not part of some coordinated plan with the Germans. Being hostile to Poland did not make you an axis ally. Not enough to make in into the infobox, which cannot be used for complex issues.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I am glad we both agree that USSR and Germany/Axis were not allies. As has been repeatedly said here many times, nobody is saying this (so please, no straw man arguments. Now, moving on - are you familiar with the term co-belligerence? "Being hostile to Poland did not make you an axis ally". Yes. But it did make "you" a co-belligerent, per the definition the concept, plus the referenced sources for this term used in this context. And the last I checked co-belligerence is discussed in the infobox, and notes allow us to clarify why. And can do it simply. The article on Axis powers lists USSR in the infobox with a simple note 'see Soviet invasion of Poland. I'd rather expand the note, but if more people prefer a non-complex simple note like this, that's better than nothing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Except I think it adds nothing, as they were no a co-belligerent of the Axis. They were (at best) a co-belligerent for less than 3 months (I.E. actively engaged in military operations in cooperation with an Axis power).Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, By that logic, you'd also support removal from the list of Iraq from the list of Axis co-belligerents in Axis power infobox since theAnglo-Iraqi War lasted under a month? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to raise that issue do so, but as I have said elsewhere, two wrongs do not make a right. Cases must be taken on a case by case basis as there maybe subtle differences that make a difference.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Comparisons are useful, however, and in this case, it seems to me that USSR acted much more 'against the Allies' than Iraq in 1941 (where a pro-German, anti-British internal faction carried out a coup d'etat and blocaded a British base - and the Allies (British), instead of continuing the negotiations, simply launched a first strike (shot first...). So Allies who attack a non-aligned (and unfriendly state) make it an 'Axis co-belligerent' but when USSR invaded an Ally, it is not one? C'mon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And this is not the place to discuss Iraq, as I said it can be argued they two situations are not analogous (as you yourself point out).Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I have a comment for all who want to put USSR for some kind of Axis-aligned things. First, I will not accept the resources that you guys gave on here. It's because it blurts historical facts and consensus by providing data favorable to your position, not general historical data. In order to understand the relationship between the Axis powers and the Soviet Union, it should not be interpreted simply as the fact that Poland was invaded. However, it is also unreasonable to define them as allies through events such as the Battle of KhalKhin Gol. At that time, we should look at what the policy stance of the Soviet Union toward other countries was and what the Soviet Union should pursue on the basis of it.

It is in this context that the current attempt to bring the Soviet Union into a co-belligerent of Axis is inappropriate. For example, the Katin massacre was the Soviet slaughter of Polish soldiers, but is there evidence that it was for cooperation with Germany or other Axis powers? And it is true that the Soviet Union was allied with Germany in the invasion of Poland, but what role does it play in the relationship between the Axis powers as a whole and the Soviet Union? It is very difficult to analyze a country's relationship simply over historical events. The reason why I mentioned the Second Sino-Japanese War or the border dispute between the Soviet Union and Japan was to show that the Soviet policy at that time was jagged, not to show that the Soviet Union fought on either side.

And if the Soviet Union were to be driven to one side from 1939 to 1941, based on the conflict involving the Soviet Union, we would have to think about the problems of the countries that fought with the Soviet Union. Romania, Japan, Poland, and the Baltic states were the countries that experienced conflict with the Soviet Union between 1939 and 1941. If we were to classify the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent of Axis powers, would these countries be Axis powers or Allied powers? I wonder if those who insist on putting the Soviet Union in mind this point.

The conclusion is simple. Take a closer look at the claim that the Soviet Union was a collaborator of the Axis powers, if not the Axis powers. It is a peripheral claim based on the relationship between Germany and Poland among the so-called Axis powers, that Germany and the Soviet Union worked together in Eastern European policy until 1941. In particular, they emphasize Poland's invasion and the massacre of Katyn, highlighting Poland's victimhood and emphasizing that Poland was alliance. However, it is not a document dealing with the German-Soviet-Polish triangle, but with the Allied and Axis powers. The relationship between countries can be covered in different documents.

My personal view is that the attempt to define and emphasize that Soviet Union was partner with Axis is a violation of Wikipedia policy. The data they bring is also to strengthen their arguments, not to provide an objective view. It is also natural to question whether their claims are accepted by the majority of the historical community.

I think the attempt to define the Soviet Union as Axis-aligned should stop immediately. Also, we hope that two of you who only focus on Poland will understand the overall context of WW2. Axis is not a same word as Nazi Germany.

Thank you for reading the long article. -- Wendylove (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

웬디러비, What you need to consider is that history is not white and black. I know you realize this, but what I mean is that things change over time. By invading Poland in '39, USSR was acting as a co-belligerent of the Axis, while by fighting with Japan they simultaneously acted as a co-belligerent of the Allies. And after Barbarossa, of course, they joined the Allied camp. So USSR has at least three hats here: an Ally (from 1941), and a co-belligerent party for both camps (in the period preceding that era). I don't see why there is an opposition to explain it in the note (and I don't suggest removing the USSR from the Big 3/4 camp, as it is obvious that it was a more significant role than their balancing act of the previous years - I am all for keeping it there, but with a note explaining that in the years prior it acted militarily against both an Ally and an Axis power). As for your question about the role of "the countries that experienced conflict with the Soviet Union between 1939 and 1941", this is not a problem, as nobody is arguing that USSR was an Ally in that period, do they? Consider Finland. Finland was no a co-belligerent of the Axis in the Winter War of 1940 b/c no Axis or Allied power was involved in the 1940 Finland-USSR conflict. Finland became a co-belligerent of the Axis in 1941 when it co-invaded USSR together with Germany (an Axis power). Does it makes sense? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you should look what position "co-belligerent" has in both Allies article and Axis article. Actually, in article Axis powers, there is no co-belligerent descriptions but memebers of Tripartite Pact, Anti-Comintern Pact, and Puppet State of so-called Axis powers. And if you see Allies of WW2, the only country, Kingdom of Italy is described as co-belligerent. I think those former Axis powers and co-belligerents is not right-term to use and makes everyone quite confused. And Italy itself can be described as Former Axis power, so actually "co-belligerent" is nothing to do with Axis or Allies.

And Second, you consistently emphasize Poland. I don't know why you persist on Poland itself? Take a step back. Look from a third party's perspective. Just look at the objective facts. At that time, Germany and Japan were allied as Axis powers. The Soviet Union was fighting a border dispute with Japan while cooperating with Germany in Poland. Don't you see how futile it is to distinguish the Soviet Union into different forces on each issue? If you put it like that, French Indochina, in 1940 Japan's occupation of the incident. At this time, French Indochina was a colony of Vichy France. So, does Vichy France become a co-hostile nation? No, Vichy France is still classified as a puppet state of the Axis, and is not classified as a co-belligerent country anywhere in the Pacific War or the Sino-Japanese War.

You repeated this pattern even when you took Finland as an example. You are listing each incident that Finland experienced during World War II and analyzing what the country was like according to it. However, how Finland was on the German side should not be analyzed separately from case to case, but rather the context. Finland is not a co-belligerent country. As Romania did, Finland was originally politically seeking aid from Britain and France, but it was tilted toward Germany due to the Soviet-German nonaggression treaty in 1939 and the Soviet invasion in 1940.

I have watched you continue to pay close attention to the relationship between Poland, Germany and the Soviet Union. It's just one of the many images of the Soviet Union. If you look at the policies that the Soviet Union has taken to other European countries, the policies that the Soviet Union has taken to Asia, and the policies that the Soviet Union has taken to the United States, it is clear that the Soviet Union cannot be called an old Axis or a co-hostile country, as you say. Once again, Germany is not the only Axis country, and please refrain from attracting other countries such as Japan and Finland to emphasize the invasion of Poland in this way. For your information, I am thinking of requesting arbitration on this matter.

-- Wendylove (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's be objective then. The USSR invaded Poland while Poland was defending against NG aggression - in an event that was agreed with the NG - that makes the USSR a co-belligerent (at very minimum). It doesn't matter what the USSR did or did not do elsewhere. It doesn't matter what its policies were and where they might have been applied. That is being objective. If we start inserting opinions on the effects of their policies, politics, or other weighting in similar opinions (i.e. 'images') then we are already talking something that is subjective.

As to Finland... Finland was not tilted towards Germany due to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, if anything it was the opposite. The objective fact remains that excluding the USSR the NG was the most hostile country towards Finland during the Winter War (i.e. Soviet invasion of 1939-40). The NG interned shipments sent to Finland (including Italian supplies). The NG even agreed (at least in principle) to refuel Soviet subs at sea to enable them to sink Finnish merchant vessels. The tilting as you described it only occurred in the aftermath of the war in the summer of 1940. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is not the articles of German-Soviet-Polish relation articles. @Piotrus, Wanderer602, and Volunteer Marek: All of three of you are still obsessed with Invasion of Poland. Let's be more objective. When Poland was invaded in 1939 by USSR, it is also USSR which had sent troops and material aids, and even military advisors in Second Sino-Japanese War from 1937 for Chinese side. Then, are three of you going to tell USSR was co-belligerent of China? And most of all, what is the main topic of this long discussion? Was it whether to decide USSR was aligned with Axis side? Then three of you should look not only invasion of Poland, but also other conflicts which Soviets and Axis related. If three of you are going to merely talk about Invasion of Poland, then discuss that topic on Talk:Invasion of Poland. -- Wendylove (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Either you want it to be objective or you do not. You previously claimed that you did. The agreed fact is that the USSR invaded Poland at the same time as Poland was fighting against invasion by the NG (and the USSR had an agreement with the NG). Which, if we follow what the term 'co-belligerent' means, makes the USSR co-belligerent with Nazi Germany - if you are indeed objective. In this respect it doesn't matter what the status of the USSR may or may not have been in the east. Why this matters is because it is rather central to the question if the USSR should be counted as 'co-belligerent with Axis' or not. Since that is a matter discussed in the this article the discussion on it should also be handled here. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether USSR is co-belligerent of Axis means that whether USSR was co-belligerents of Germany, of Japan, and of Italy. Yes, Invasion of Poland is one of the incident that Germany and USSR was co-belligerent, but it doesn't mean USSR was co-belligerents of whole Axis powers. You said Invasion of Poland is " central to the question if the USSR should be counted as 'co-belligerent with Axis'". But when does Axis power became same as only Nazi Germany? -- Wendylove (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And I think it is time to put this on mediation. If we are going to take this with "Poland" problem, it will not be end. -- Wendylove (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

웬디러비, Nazi Germany was the most important of the Axis powers. Consider Finland: I am not aware of Finland taking any actions against any Ally except USSR, but Finland is still considered a co-belligerent of Axis powers, right? Anyway,you said yourself: "Invasion of Poland is one of the incidents that Germany and USSR was co-belligerent". Ok. Why not add this very sentence, penned by yourself, as a note to the USSR in the infobox? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we (ALL) lay of the PA's and assumptions of bad faith? Frankly a few of you are one post way from ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

ALL - including you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment

There is an adage: A country has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.

Strategic affairs are a dance: Partners change as circumstances change. In the 18th century, at a certain point Britain's American colonies fought a War of Independence against their "Mother Country". Since World War II, Britain has affirmed a friendly "special relationship" with its former hostile colonies.

Early in the Interbellum the two pariah countries, Germany and the Soviet Union, collaborated in modernizing their militaries; Germany developed its proscribed weapons in the Soviet Union.

In the Spanish Civil War (1936–39), Germany and the Soviet Union were adversaries supporting, respectively, the Nationalists and the loyalists.

In 1938, after the Munich Conference, Poland seized Cieszyn Silesia – "Teschen", in German – which the Czechs had seized from the Poles when Poland was fighting for its life against Ukraine and later the Soviet Union.

For a couple of years before Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the Soviets were sending materials to Germany which helped strengthen the German war potential.

An alliance is a formality and can be broken, as the Germans broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1941. But before that, in jointly invading Poland, they were certainly cobelligerents.

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the latter came to be considered an ally by Britain and the United States, because all three now had a common interest in defeating Germany. After World War II, the Soviet Union ceased to be regarded as an ally and came to be viewed as an enemy.

Partners in a dance can and do change, and accounts of the dance should reflect the changes.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, per the mother article cited, it means a clear co-belligerence.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

WP is not a source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, only co-belligerent in Invasion of Poland, not a whole Axis' co-belligerents. That's what you guys who persistently insists that USSR is co-belligerent of Axis are missing of.

And Soviet also invaded Romania and Baltic countries in 1940, but none of resources say USSR is co-belligerent of Allies. -- Wendylove (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

웬디러비, What, Baltic countries were part of the Axis now? And get your history right. USSR did not invade Romania. It issued an ultimatum and Romanian withdrew, hence we have an article on Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina and not on Soviet invasion of Romania. Lastly, Soviet action was in July 1940, and Romania joined the Axis in November. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose note on USSR. The alternative viewpoint that the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis is a minority position held by those with a Polish-centric viewpoint. The alliance did not regard the Soviet Union settling its unresolved issues in Eastern Poland/Western USSR as an act of war against the alliance. During 1939-41 the USSR also fought Japan and Romania, which were on the Axis side.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC) strike globally banned sock puppet
  • Incorrect as far as Romania goes. The USSR made territorial demands upon Romania, which accepted them without resisting. The Soviets were prepared to impose their demand by force, but did not have occasion to do so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• During the invasion of Poland, USSR was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany. If we include USSR into a category "Former Axis co-belligerent" that would imply it was co-belligerent of the Axis, not Germany alone, i.e. it was at war with some Ally when the Axis already existed. Did the Axis exist by 1st Sept, 1939? As far as I know, Anti-Comintern pact was the only form of any alliance between Japan, Germany, and Italy by that time. However, if we assume the Axis existed by that time, the whole story should look as follows: by 1st of Sept, 1939, USSR had already been Allied co-belligerent (the truce with Japan was signed in mid September), then it became the Axis co-belligerent (invaded Poland), then it invaded Romania (that would become the Axis member later) and the Baltic states (which were de facto Axis co-belligerents after 1941). You must agree that approach leads to tremendous problems. It would be much simpler to explain (in a footnote) that USSR invaded Poland, which de facto made it Nazi Germany's co-belligerent, but no war was declared on USSR by Western powers, because their military guaranties were directed exclusively at Germany. That would be correct, and the user would not be confused by seeing the Soviet flag in "the Axis co-belligerent" section.

You may compare that with a clear example of co-belligerence: Finland. It was a co-belligerent of one Axis power (its co-belligerence started after the Axis had formalized), and the scale and duration of hostilities were significant enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, Wasn't Finland a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany too? Did Finland take actions against any other Allies, or in support of any other Axis powers? Also, we can clarify this in a note (my current solution is to keep USSR in the section Big Three but add a note saying that in the period 1939-1941 it acted as a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany against Poland and perhaps, also note it was a co-belligerent of China against Japan? (And yes, the current article defines Axis as existing from 1936...). Anyway, would you like to draft a note as you suggested above? My old note can be found in the article history, IIRC, if it would be of any help. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you should stop adding any more "co-belligerents" stuff, because you've got warned many times for that. Let's just talk about USSR right now. -- Wendylove (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

As per above, I think those attempts to put USSR in Axis co-belligerent are just Polish nationalist view which is minority in historical view as User:Astral Leap mentioned. Their argument seems different, but their argument has connection. Because Soviets invade Poland and Germans cooperate with Soviets, they want to put Soviets as one of the co-belligerent of Axis. Well, alsㅔ, they only narrow Axis powers into Nazi Germany to make their opinion seem rationale. If we get involved into their view, this becomes a meaningless discussion that repeats the same story indefinitely. Now that we have confirmed our respective positions, we need to cool off this debate through the intervention of third parties, including mediation, rather than continuing to put forward only what we claim. -- Wendylove (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as I already wrote, it was a co-belligerent of one Axis power (Nazi Germany) during a period of time when the Axis was fully formed. I am not sure if it was involved in any hostilities against any other Ally besides USSR. However, if I am not wrong, it was aided by Italy (who sent some vessels to the Ladoga lake). Anyway, the timing, scale and duration of hostilities Finland was involved in (it was fighting against the USSR when the Axis was a true military alliance, its strategic role was very important, and hostilities lasted for three years) makes it necessary to include it into the infobox.

If the goal is to keep saying as much bad things about the USSR as possible, that is a solution. However, please, try to stick with facts: since no war was declared on the USSR after its invasion of Poland, its co-belligerence ended after de facto cessation of hostilities in Poland, so I am not sure where the dates 1939-41 come from. If we want to tell about all military actions the USSR was involved in, how should we describe the period from 1st of September, 1939 to 15th of September (when the truce with Japan was signed)? During the 1939-41 period, the USSR invaded and annexed a part of territory of a future member of the Tripartite Pact. How does all of that fits the Axis co-belligerence criterion?

In addition, some users argued that "the Axis" is more vague term than Tripartite Pact, and its beginning goes back to 1936. In connection to that, if we want to tell a full story about the USSR, then it is necessary to mention that the Axis started as Anti-Comintern pact, and the first military conflict that involved future Axis and future Ally was a proxy war in Spain. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Well of course Piotrus was unaware of British operations against Finland Operation EF (1941) and Operation Benedict. Or that Britain declared war on Finland on 5 December 1941 while never doing so in the case of the Soviet Union. Perhaps Piotrus would be interested in the case of the Dekemvriana when the British freed and then allied themselves with Greek Axis collaborators in order to suppress the Greek communist resistance. Does that make Britain an Axis co-belligerent starting from 1944?.--Catlemur (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Catlemur, Interesting. But you missed the point. Let me make it simple for you. Did Finland carry out any operations against the Allies other than USSR? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus Finland collaborated with Germany in sinking Allied Arctic convoys, exchanged Soviet ciphers with Japan and engaged the RAF over Soviet Airspace. Since Finland was barely holding its ground against the Soviets, there wasn't much else they could do.--Catlemur (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(butting in) Finland was at war with the Allies. It's as simple as that. Its level of cooperation with any other power is irrelevant, although in fact it cooperated extensively with Germany. The Dekemvriana, however, is irrelevant because Axis collaborators are not states. The obvious relevance of the Soviet invasion of Poland is that the USSR invaded an actual Ally in concert with a state at war with the Allies. Why would the Soviet war with Japan in 1939 matter? In what way was Japan "Axis" at that time? If by Axis you mean Anti-Comintern Pact, then of course the Axis was never completely at war with the Allies. In fact, no actual alliance was ever invoked (to my knowledge) in the war against the Allies. The Axis should not be viewed as a military alliance per se, but rather as a coalition of states fighting common enemies. To complicate matters further, the Allies did consider going to war with the Soviets in 1939, just not over Poland. It is possible to appreciate the Soviet contribution to the defeat of the Nazis and acknowledge its outsized role among the Allies without whitewashing the period 1939–41. Srnec (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

We deal with content on a case-by-case basis, it's not a tit for tat exchange. It does not matter what specific cases we have in, each is individual and may be unique.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - 1) The accusations of “Polish nationalist POV” are out of place. The Nazi-Soviet Pact horrified government and public opinion in Britain, France and the US. Taken as a whole, the three main Western democracies were outraged that the USSR had allied with Germany. Two of them declared war shortly thereafter, following the start of German implementation of the pact. So this really isn’t just about Poland.
• 2) The fact that the Soviets mainly limited their collaboration to Germany is kind of meaningless as far as the co-belligerent of the Axis issue is concerned. First, the Soviets did make a concerted effort to improve ties with Italy, with the Germans helping along. Second, the Soviets famously did not attack Japan until August 1945. Third, it’s a matter of simple geography. Of course Russia was primarily going to collaborate with the giant power next door, not Italy, whose area of influence simply didn’t interest them that much.
• 3) We should also think of the big picture. Regardless of complicating factors (of which there were plenty, to be sure), “on whose side” was the USSR from the Pact to Barbarossa? The answer is not really in doubt. How this gets reflected in the infobox is debatable, but let’s not lose sight of the basic question. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: It would be bizzare to imagine that a group of esteemed Wikipedia editors would ever secretly coordinate their actions to promote pro-Polish POV, game the system, assume bad faith and all those vile things. This has never happened in the past, it is not happening now, nor will it ever happen in the future.--Catlemur (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Catlemur, I'm sorry but you seem to be incapable of discussing this issue without resorting to personal attacks. Almost every comment you've made on this page has been an insult or an attack on another editor. This is your last warning. Volunteer Marek 15:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

To add to what Volunteer Marek just said: please comment on content, not contributors. You do realize that dredging up something from 2009, rather than addressing my arguments head-on, is not doing you any credit, right?

You’re not going to silence or intimidate me, so you may as well engage in a good-faith debate, or leave that to more constructive editors. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I read through all the new comments, my technical remark to Paul (yes, WP is not a source, but we should have coherent terminologies through articles) and Wendylove (btw, I have to point out Biruitorul as well has the point and I don't see this particular issue as a cordination, but both Poles and Romanians experienced at first hand the events affecting their country by the USSR, which I deeply understand), that such argumentation like USSR would be solely belligerent only with Nazi Germany and not the Axis is out of question, since Slovakia also attacked Poland, and was an Axis Power.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

Summing up

I think it is time to put our debate into the end, because we have confirmed about what opposites and pros talk about status of USSR during WW2, and about whether to put USSR in "former axis powers and co-belligerents" So, I think we should sum up what we talk about, so get some conclusion to this long debate. Here's what pros and opposites' main idea.

"Pro"- Agree to put USSR on "former Axis power and co-belligerents"

Main point

• During Invasion of Poland, USSR cooperated with Nazi Germany. This is verified with various resources.
• Nazi Germany was main Axis power, so we can consider that USSR has collaborated with Axis power.

"Opposite"- Disaree to put USSR on "former Axis power and co-belligerents"

• Invasion of Poland is important, but it is not describing whole relations between Axis power and USSR.
• Nazi Germany is main Axis power, but it is not sole power in Axis, so we should consider relationship between USSR and other Axis countries as well.
• USSR's policy toward Axis power is jagged, which can be proved by Second Sino-Japanese War and other conflicts with Axis.
• Putting USSR as "former Axis power and co-belligerents" is attempt by Poland Nationalist and it is minor view in general history.

Okay, so this is what we talked about in this debate. I think pro's claim can be changed by pro, and opposite's claim can be changed by opposite, if you think it's wrong. But do not argue about whether it is right or wrong, because we can do that in above. This section is for summing up what our opinions are. -- Wendylove (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the framing of pro as supporting "former Axis power" is accurate. It should be "former Axis allies and co-belligerents". Volunteer Marek 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Those who opened this debate started their article as "Former Axis powers or co-belligerents: why USSR is not here?", so I think we don't need to change the name for it right now. -- Wendylove (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Map of participants in World War II

Map of participants in World War II

I've made a proposal to alter the world Map of participants in World War II to change the colors used for France and its colonies. Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Grand Alliance

I think that paragraphs from previous Grand Alliance (World War II) should be summarized, because this paragraphs are just copy of Grand Alliance (World War II). Of course Grand Alliance can be main point of Allies of WW2, but merging of the whole redirect article is other matter. Grand Alliance is not the same word as Allies of WW2, so I think we should extend the paragraphs into history of Allies to cover up the whole context of ww2. Wendylove (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

A separate section makes more sense because a number of the sources cited cover this aspect specifically. Whizz40 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think there are two problems here. First, contents of that paragraph are overlapped with early history of Allies. Second, is the term Grand Alliance more often used than other words like Big Three? Whether to put "Grand Alliance" as representative word and whether to change this paragraph should be discussed, because it can be merged to "History of Allies". -- Wendylove (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources are pretty clear: The Big Three formed a Grand Alliance that controlled Allied strategy. This deserves its own section. Many more countries joined the Allies. Roosevelt was chief promoter of the Four Powers concept which evolved into the five permanent members of the UNSC. This has a section in the article as well. Whizz40 (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not of the matter of sources, but the matter of "overlapped" and "frequency" according to the WP:OVERLAP and WP:TITLE. I want to get answer about these things.

• Isn't it better to cover up whole history of Allies because your edit is overlapped with it? This article isn't written as a chronological history. It's written in a summary style with sections covering different aspects of the topic.
• Is it proper to name the title of paragraphs as "Grand Alliance"? Several sources cover this aspect of the topic in detail, enough to justify a section on it.
• Is the term "Grand Alliance" overwhelmingly used compared to other words that describe Allies? The multiple sources added show "Grand Alliance" is in common usage to refer to the alliance of the big three. It shouldn't be used as a synonym for all the allies, rather it one aspect of the topic "Allies of World War II" that is relevant to discuss in the article.
• Did you think about the problem of "Optional exclusions" when we used about the word "Grand Alliance"? How are you going to explain the battles of France in 1940, or China in Pacific War? The origins section provides the background from pre-WWII through June 1941. The Grand Alliance sections follows on from that.

I know you are the major editor of Grand Alliance (World War II), but I think your edit is totally aligned to that article. -- Wendylove (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to cover the whole history of WWII in chronological order in this article. Grand Alliance isn't a synonym for the Allies; it's a subtopic. The secondary sources I added to the article emphasise not only that the Big Three made significant contributions to the Allied War effort, but also that the cooperation between them affected the outcome of the war effort and post-war planning (and this cooperation broke down after 1945 leading to the Cold War). That needs it's own section; it doesn't apply to all of the allies. Without it's own section heading, readers wouldn't know where to navigate to in order to read about that aspect of the topic. Whizz40 (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Whizz40: I want to hear the answer for what I ask. Pls answer my question so that we can process our debate. -- Wendylove (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see my responses added in teal above. Whizz40 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but I think it is better to update this article with Origins and creation. Let's see what your edit contains and compare with "Origins"

• "Before entering into an alliance, there was pre-emptive cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States."
• "Hitler broke the non-aggression agreement with Stalin and Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union declared war on Germany. Britain agreed an alliance with the Soviet Union in July." (your edit)
• "On 31 March 1939, Britain formed the Anglo-Polish military alliance in an effort to avert a German attack on the country."
• "Britain and France established the Anglo-French Supreme War Council to coordinate military decisions. A Polish government-in-exile was set up in London and it continued to be one of the Allies"
• "Also, the French had a long-standing alliance with Poland since 1921." (sentences from Origins)

Like Axis powers, which described the whole story of how Axis power developed, your edits and Allies of World War II#Origins can be merged because it has a same aspect- How Allies developed during the course of war. If you still believe that Grand Alliance should be independent paragraphs of this article, then I will ask other editors advice for mediating our ideas. -- Wendylove (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wendylove, I think we should use informative section headings to describe how the Allies developed during the course of the war. An encyclopedia article does not have to be written like an essay. Headings sign-post readers to key aspects of the topic. Some readers might want to go directly to a particular section; not many will read the whole article from start to finish. The current headings such as"Grand Alliance" and "United Nations" (with sub-headings "The Big Three" and "Four Powers") are preferable to long sections of prose with generic section headings. The latter could turn readers off or leave them unable to find what they are looking for. Whizz40 (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Chile

It isn't listed here but on the following page it says Chile declared war on Germany and Italy in 1943. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II Firestar47 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

The caption below the pictures of the Big Five (>Major affiliated state combattants) has a typo: "Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek and Charles de Gaulle >>was<< leaders of the Big Five with Alliance". Change "was" to "were" Xalia (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this has already been fixed. RudolfRed (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Iran

Why is Iran colored grey on the map? It signed the Declaration by United Nations and declared war on the Axis in 1943. 2601:41:4000:3A20:6495:9AC3:1D9C:B2AF (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC) (john k)

It has a green dot in it, symbolizing that it became part of the Allies even though it was fighting them earlier (or rather, was attacked by them) --Havsjö (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Argentina was neutral

Argentina, as well as other Latin American nations coloured in light green, where actually neutral throughout the entire war. Argentina particularly seems strange to be shown as an Allied power as it harboured Axis war criminals after the war and had the infamous rat lines Ltstorks21 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree this is misleading and the map should be updated. Argentina joined the Allies at the very last moment in order to be eligible to join the United Nations. Whizz40 (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Finland

Following the Moscow Armistice of September 1944, Finland fought on the side of the allies against axis forces until April 1945 in the Lapland War. So shouldn't Finland be included in Allies_of_World_War_II#Co-belligerent_state_combatants, like Italy? --Nug (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, makes sense. I see it has now been added. Whizz40 (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Where is France?

Free France is on the list in the infobox, but why not France (the third republic). The third republic fought Germany as an ally until 25 June 1940. They are not the same entity. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 08:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed and editors tried some variations with consensus forming on the current layout in the Infobox. Whizz40 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a note in the Infobox next to Free France which explains the detail. Whizz40 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

{{subst:trim|1=

In "The Soviet Union intervened against Japan and its client state in Manchuria in 1945...", there should be a link to Manchukuo, the Japanese puppet state, over [[Manchuria], the region in Northeast Asia or both.

}} Loch-Boch (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done , I added a link to Manchuko over "client state" for improved clarity. Thanks for your request :) Actualcpscm (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of term "British India" in many cases; argument for my case

In many places, the term "British India" has been used erroneously in place of "India". Given are the places where such has been observed –

When the conflict broke out on 1 September 1939, the Allied coalition consisted of the United Kingdom, France, and Poland, as well as their respective dependencies, such as British India.

India, the entire country, not just British India (i.e, the provinces of India), was the dependency of United Kingdom. Also worth mentioning, it was India that declared war on Germany.

As the Statute of Westminster 1931 was not yet ratified by the parliaments of Australia and New Zealand, the British declaration of war on Germany also applied to those dominions. The other dominions and members of the British Commonwealth declared war from 3 September 1939, all within one week of each other; they were Canada, British India and South Africa.

Same for here too. India declared war on Germany not British India.

British India included the areas and peoples covered by later India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and (until 1937) Burma/Myanmar, which later became a separate colony.

"India" should be used here as British India covers a much smaller area and can't be used as a replacement for India.

The alliance was formalised in the Declaration by United Nations signed on 1 January 1942. There were the 26 original signatories of the declaration; the Big Four were listed first:

• United States
• United Kingdom
• Soviet Union
• China
• Australia
• Belgium
• Canada
• Costa Rica
• Cuba
• Czechoslovakia
• Dominican Republic
• El Salvador
• Greece
• Guatemala
• Haiti
• Honduras
• British India

In the formal declaration, India was the member, not British India.

Also in some places, a prefix "British" has been added before the term "Indian Army". The actual, factual and nominal name for the term is "Indian Army". Prefix "British" is only added in situations where it's unavoidable for example the article name as two articles with same name can't exist. There's no need for it here.

This talk page was made as argument for my case in support of my edit(s) which as of now, has been reverted. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

With your edits you suggest that British India/British Raj is identical to present day India. Seeing the split in 1947, that is clearly not the case. You can not expect readers to be well versed in Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi history to know the differences between the terms over time. The Banner talk 11:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

A valid point, "India" did not exist at the time, it was created in 1947 with partitian. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the reason this all is happening is because British India and British Raj are not the same as India. India refers to the whole country including British India and the princely states, all of which, was under the suzerainty of the British Crown. Take a look at any political map of year 1858 - 1947. India, not British India, was recognised as a country worldwide. Look at United Nations, League of Nations, Olympics and of course the world map. British India only refers to the provinces of India during the Raj. The agencies and residencies (which comprised of one or more native states) is excluded. British Raj, as I'd shown in the citations to Banner at my user talk page, is a period or rule, not territory or a country. India was the name of the country and the region; it can't be replaced by anything else.

As for the partition, yes, it was not India, but British India, that was partitioned on 14-15 August 1947. But the Indian Independence Act also mentioned that the princely states had to accede to one or the other new states or choose independence. By 1950, the entire territory of India had been completely divided between Pakistan and independent India. So in practice,the partition was brought to the whole country, not just British India. Speaking of acts, also have a look at the Interpretation Act, 1889. PadFoot2008 (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean, the British colony India was recognized as such by other European states. Not as an independent state. Only after the split two (and later three) new independent states emerged from the territory formerly called British India or British Raj. The Banner talk 05:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, India was recognised as a part of the British Empire, and, in practice (but not officially) a colony of United Kingdom. Yes, two independent states were formed from the territory formerly called "British India" on 15 August 1947, while rest of India was given choice to choose which independent state it was going to become a part of. No, the territory wasn't called British Raj. I've already told what that term means. And this discussion isn't on what happened on 15 or 14 August. This is about the misuse of the terms "British India" in place of "India". Please confirm if you've understood what the term "British India" means and present counter-arguments (if any) seperately, to all of the cases I've mentioned. If you don't have any good counter-arguments then I'd consider myself good to redo my edit.
PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as first thing I did was reading the articles British Raj and British India (Presidencies and provinces of British India. Both articles disagree with your stance that those two are identical to India. The Banner talk 10:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Ow, and it is not about what you like but what the community consensus is. So far, I do not see any support for your stance. I am aware that there are very few people involved in this discussion. The Banner talk 10:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

But if we say India a reader might assume we mean the modern state, and not the one that existed at the time. Britsh Raj or British India makes it clear what we are talking about. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, @The Banner, I never said those two are identical. I'm not sure what you're trying to do. And SlaterSteven you can't just replace India with British India or Raj, because you think it's more clear. All three terms have different meanings, and many other Wikipedia articles and books use the term "India", except of course, this page. Using British Raj or British India will make it factually incorrect as the three are not same. To clear it out:

It isn't a personal view. British India refers to provinces of India during the Raj. British Raj refers to the period of British Crown rule over India from 1858 to 1947, sometimes the rule itself. While the entire country including "British India" and the princely states during the Raj, was called India or Indian Empire. This is a really basic thing, any editor working on articles related to modern Indian history should know this.

A section from my talk page discussion with The Banner explaining the meanings of the terms.

(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.
(5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.

A section from the Interpretation Act, 1889 of UK parliament, borrowed from Wikipedia article on British Raj. This should make it quite clear. Again:
(1) British India, British Raj and India, in the sense of the period 1858-1947, are different terms with unique meanings.
(2)The places I had mentioned way before at the start require the term "India" for reasons I have explained before (Also see what the Interpretation Act says about "India"). PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You contradict yourself with edits like this: [3], [4], [5] and several more. You quote the Interpretation Act, 1889 of UK parliament that states British India, British Raj and India, in the sense of the period 1858-1947, are different terms with unique meanings but everywhere you are reducing the link to just "India", removing the "unique meanings" from that law. The Banner talk 12:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Request to change Poland to Polish Underground State

Can we change {{flagdeco|Poland|1928}} Poland to {{flagdeco|Polish Underground State}} Polish Underground State?

Officially Polish Underground State was a country ruled by Polish government-in-exile, in 1945 Polish Underground State was dissolved so Polish government-in-exile was continuing existence as a stateless government until 1990. So during the war, Polish representative was Polish Underground State. In Polish history schoolbooks accepted by the Minister of Education and Science, Polish Underground State was established on September 30, 1939. So for the first 30 days of war the II Republic of Poland was fighting against Germany, but later Polish government migrated to London, and inside the III Reich, General Government and Soviet occupied territories, this government created Polish Underground State that in theory had a borders of the II Republic of Poland, but the flag and name was changed. I also could talk about second government-in-exile made by Polish communists in 1944 that was fighting against Polish Underground State, but it could make Allies list a bit confusing seeing 2 Polish entities. DerekTDR (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Our article says "that were loyal to the Government of the Republic of Poland in exile in London". So it does not seem to have been distinct form the Polish government in exile. Can we see some sources that says it was in fact a wholly separate governmental entity? Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I said it wrong. I agree with a statement "that were loyal to the Government of the Republic of Poland in exile in London" Polish Underground State was a country, but the Polish government-in-exile ruled that country. PUS was a state entity and Polish gov-in-exile was governmental entity. They were 2 I just wanted to ask can we change government to country that existed and was ruled by that government. Because Polish government-in-exile existed to 1990 and Polish Underground State to 1945, it's just more aesthetic I guess. And I think it is better to list countries then governments specially in the times when Polish government-in-exile had a state (Polish Underground State) and was not stateless (like in 1945-1990). DerekTDR (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Polish Underground State was not a country, it was a political and military entity formation in occupied Poland. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Some Canadian and British guy try to argue with a Polish one about Polish history. Even if the Polish Underground State wasn't a state for you @GizzyCatBella how should I know what Poland is listed as an ally? We need to remember that Poles were fighting each other during WW2. Home Army and Polish Underground State against the People's Army, Polish Committee of National Liberation later Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland and Soviet Union. If it's listed just "Poland" which Poland do you mean? What Poland? Officialy Poland didn't even existed during WW2, only for first month of the war, the rest of time you had stateless government-in-exile, which had a state in WW2, just under occupation and "underground". If you want to argue we can go to the video made by IPN on YouTube, because IPN decides how Polish history should looks and how it is looking for now. If they say Polish Underground State you can't argue with them, if they say Polish government-in-exile you cannot argue with them and the truth is on my side because I learn history from the IPN books you *******.

Thank you for your patience! DerekTDR (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella I am sorry for my last words. I am very emotional unstable person and I get angry and hyped very fast. DerekTDR (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)