Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2023

The Soviet Union should be mentioned before the United States in the introduction rather than after. 103.59.198.83 (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Changes such as this tend to be contentious, and you've provided no reasoning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Usage of the term Cypriot

Why is it "Greek Cypriots and Turkish-speaking inhabitants of Cyprus" instead of simply "Cypriots" or "Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots" or "Greek-speaking and Turkish-speaking inhabitants of Cyprus"? 95.143.62.54 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

British Ceylon

British Ceylon should be added to the list of combatants. There are many Ceylon soldiers fought and died in WW2 for the British Empire Kevin.pathirage (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfair for China to be placed in "Other allied combatants"

Been fighting the Japs since 1931/1937. Of course they were pretty ineffective, but they suffered massive casualties. All this just to be an "Other"? Alexysun (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC) RS call the big three the big three. That is why they are separate. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Philippines

There are only 25 allies of United Nations in the list but Philippines is also included which will be added as the 26th member 2001:4453:6D1:BA00:6830:3BE2:304:D6C8 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2023

It would make sense to remove all British colonies/territories from "Other Allied Combatant States" as they all belong to the United Kingdom. Also, this same change was done on the "Allies of World War I" page already, probably due to the same reason I stated before. JellyGamery (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, between the first and second WWs, Statute of Westminster was signed. It made British dominions almost independent. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Yes, I am aware that British Dominions were considered independent states. Although it's still unclear to me why India and Southern Rhodesia are both still listed, as they are both colonies and distinct from the rest of the British Dominions in terms of autonomy. I don't mean to make a big deal out of these minor details, it's just that I visit both Allied Power pages often and the inconsistencies between them kind of bother me. JellyGamery (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, for me it is also unclear. India was not a dominion, it was ruled by British Crown. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It's not quite clear to me what you have agreed on. If the British Dominions were independent enough to be considered distinct participants, and they did participate, should they not be listed in the infobox? I agree that it might be somewhat inaccurate to list India / British Raj as an independent combatant, but I would argue there is some encyclopedic value to the explicit mention of such a large country in the list. I would suggest including the participating British Dominions, and perhaps changing the listing of India to British Raj, which might be slightly more accurate while still delivering important information. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I can see now that I was mistaken about the British Dominions. I suppose now I would agree that the British Dominions should be kept, as among the world they were considered as independent entities. However, I would say it would make sense for India to be removed just as Southern Rhodesia, as it's really the only outlier on the info box and every other colony of the European powers is not listed. JellyGamery (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Date Soviet Union joined Allies

Hello all

I have corrected this date to July 1941, with an explanation. The Soviet Union didn't automatically "join" the allies the moment it was attacked by Germany, it joined them when a formal military agreement was signed with the leading allied power at the time, which was the UK. The Anglo-Soviet agreement therefore marks the date that the Soviet Union joined the allies. This is consistent with the wording of the rest of the article. The first sentence states that the Allies "were an international military coalition" and a "military coalition" is defined as " a group that temporarily agrees to work together in order to achieve a common goal." You can't have a military coalition without some form of formal agreement and the agreement that formally attached the Soviet Union to the other allied powers was the Anglo-Soviet agreement (given that the UK was the only major power formally at war with the Axis at that time). Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I already responded on my talk page, and I respond here.

If we are too focused on formal alliances, we face an obvious problem: there were no Allies after the fall of France till 22th of June, 1941, because the United Kingdom was fighting alone (I write "United Kingdom, not "Great Britain", which is important in this case). Furthermore, the coalition that was fighting with the Axis from September 1939 till June 1940 was the remnant of Entente cordiale, former Triple Entente (the WWI time formation). It ceased to exist after fall of France, and a new alliance formalized after 22th of June, 1941 and then extended after 7th of December, 1941.

Therefore, if we will be too formal, we should speak about different alliances during different periods of WWII.

The most logical solution would be to focus on real military activity: who declared war on whom. If two states declared was on the same opponent, they should be considered de facto allies. The war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany started in June 1941, which means it became the Ally in June.

You made a bold edit, which is ok, and I reverted you, which is ok too. You explained your edit on the talk page, it is also ok, all three steps are the parts of the normal BRD cycle. But you reverted my revert, which is not ok. It would be more correct in you self-reverted, and we come to some consensus on the talk page first.

Deal? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This article and other articles on WWI and WWII focus on formal alliances and we should strive for consistency within articles. The Soviet Union should not be treated as an exception. The Allies continued to exist as a formal grouping after the defeat of France in 1940. The first inter-allied war conference was in early June 1941 and included the UK, its Dominions, and the governments-in-exile of Poland and other nations. So there was a formal grouping of allies which the Soviet Union joined in July 1941. One problem with your concept of de facto allies is that the Soviet Union jointly invaded Poland with Germany in 1939, so by your definition wouldn't it have been one of the Axis powers?. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Alas, that approach is not working: if signing of some agreement is considered as a criterion, then it should be 1904 for Britain and France. No alliance was signed in September 1939.

I am ready to continue this discussion, but you should self-revert first. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Which RS give this date? Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What are the sources for the current information you reverted to? They are entirely unsourced assertions which are contrary to the body of the article, which states: "In June 1941, Hitler broke the non-aggression agreement with Stalin and Axis forces invaded the Soviet Union, which consequently declared war on Germany and its allies. Britain agreed to an alliance with the Soviet Union in July, with both nations committing to assisting one another by any means, and to never negotiate a separate peace." To be an ally, you need an alliance. That's what the word means. Just being invaded by one country doesn't automatically make you an ally of a third country. Some degree of political, military and strategic cooperation is required for nations to become allies in the natural meaning of the word. When Churchill gave his first speech to the nation on 22 June 1941, after Barbarossa, he offered the Soviets military cooperation but pointedly said that Communism was indistinguishable from the worst excesses of Nazism. He also refused to call the Soviets allies (on the advice of cabinet and the military). Cabinet was subsequently split on the question of whether the UK should even assist the Soviets. It took weeks of internal political haggling and external diplomacy before the UK and the Soviets reached an agreement on 12 July to form a military alliance. There are many sources which support this. I suggest you read Martin Kitchen, "Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union during the Second World War," The Historical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1987), pp. 415-436. For a Russian perspective, try "The Origins of the Cold War: Stalin, Churchill and the Formation of the Grand Alliance." Gabriel Gorodetsky, The Russian Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 145-170. I realise I should have added my sources before I made the initial changes and I apologise for this. But the issue should be properly discussed and sourced with a view to reaching a broad consensus. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

We are familiar with these sources. They do not address my previous argument. I reiterate it.

For Britain and France, the the infobox shows the date "From September 1939", i.e. the date they entered the war. No alliance was signed in 1939 between France and Britain.

In contrast, you propose July 1941 for the USSR. In other words, whereas the declaration of the war on/by the Axis is used as a start date for France and Britain, the date of signing the alliance is used for the USSR. That is illogical and inconsistent, and it presents the whole WWII as the war between Britain (and her allies) and the Axis.

If we use your approach, for Britain and France, the date should be 1904 (the date when France and Britain officially became allies): they did not formalise their alliance in Sept 1939.

However, that would lead to a confusion, because in that case, the infobox creates a wrong impression that the Allies were just an extension of Triple Entente (minis Russia, plus the USSR). That is wrong. The Allies were a totally different alliance, and many members of this alliance joined the war first, and formalized their relations with other Allies later. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You haven't picked a good counter argument. What I said was, "Some degree of political, military and strategic cooperation is required for nations to become allies in the natural meaning of the word." The UK and France had a high degree of formalised consultation in September 1939. They consulted with each other before each signed written guarantees to aid Poland if it were invaded. They consulted with each other before they declared war on Germany. And after the invasion the military cooperation was formalised on 12 September 1939 by the formation of the Anglo-French Supreme War Council. So in September 1939 the UK and France were allies in a formal sense. They referred to each other as the Allies. Churchill pointedly did not refer to the Soviet Union as an ally until July. By the way, 1904 was the Entente Cordiale signed before WWI. Are you sure you aren't getting your wars confused? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. July is a more reliable date, primarily due to the signing of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement. Being invaded by Nazi Germany did not automatically make the USSR an ally of the United Kingdom and other countries with which the UK was allied; it certainly was not before it was attacked (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact ,Soviet invasion of Poland). After Operation Barbarossa started, Stalin could have chosen not to enter into an agreement and not to cooperate at all with the UK and other allied countries or even to have attacked the UK and its allies. In short, the USSR became a combatant in the Second World War in June 1941 September 1939 upon its invasion of Poland (effectively in a secret alliance with Nazi Germany) and switched sides to become one of the Allies in July 1941 after it was invaded by Nazi Germany in June 1941. Whizz40 (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the definition of the term "The Allies"? "The allies of Great Britain"? Where did you take it from? The lede defines it as "an international military coalition formed during the Second World War (1939–1945) to oppose the Axis powers". It doesn't say that the UK was a core of this coalition. Britannica says that the Allies were big countries (Britain, USSR, USA) that opposed to Germany and other Axis states, and it also says: Other countries that had been, or came to be, allied by treaty to one or more of those powers were also called Allies. In other words, the main trait of the major Ally was not signing of some alliance with Britain, but the very fact of joining the war with Germany or Japan. The US became the Ally immediately after they declared war on Japan. Similarly, USSR became the Ally immediately after it became officially at war with Nazi Germany.

With regard to ostensible joining the WWII by the USSR in 1939, neither Britain nor France considered the USSR as a combatant. Poland hadn't declared war on the USSR either (they probably considered that, but Britain and France objected to that). If some country was considered a neutral country by all parties, it would be ridiculous to retrospectively (after 80 years) claim it was a combatant. This is an example of a totally unjustified historical revisionism.

Please, show me a source that says that an Ally was considered an Ally only after signing an alliance with another Ally.

And, please, explain me the following: since fall of France till June 1941, Britain (and her dominions) was the only Ally. How do you imagine the alliance composed of a single member?

Following your logic, British Commonwealth ceased to be the Ally after fall of France, and it became an Ally only after signing the alliance with the USSR. Do you realize how ridiculous is this logic? Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin: You write: "The UK and France had a high degree of formalised consultation in September 1939." That is correct. However, I am not sure what conclusion do you draw from that. Does it mean that they became the Allies only after the formation of the Anglo-French Supreme War Council? I think, that is not what you want to say. They are considered the Allies since Sept 3, when they declared war on Germany. Not since 1904, when Entente Cordiale was signed. And, no, I do not confuse anything: Britain and France remained the allies after WWI, so no additional military alliance was required between them. They didn't sign any alliance before WWII because they already were the allies.

I doubt you will be able to find any good source that claims that France and Britain became the Allies on 12 Sept 1939. They already had been the allies. That means, for some reason, you are advocating a selective approach: you arbitrarily select one criterion for Britain and France (these two countries are considered the Allies after they declared war on Germany), and another criterion for USSR (it is considered an ally after signing some treaty with Britain). By the way, what treaty was signed in July 1941? Do you mean the joint agreement signed on 12 July by Molotov and Scripps? It was not an alliance at all, it was just a preliminary agreement. The real alliance was signed only in 1942 (the same is true for the US). Following your formal approach, we should write that both USA and USSR became the Allies only in 1942, after the Grand Alliance was signed.

Again, your redundant formalism is on brink of OR.

Please, provide a source saying that the Allies were those countries that signed an alliance with Britain. Without such a source (and a proof that it reflect a majority viewpoint) all your claims are just your own creativity. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I've already given two sources. You have given none. Please stop bludgeoning and let others have their say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I checked these sources, as well as "Molotov, the Making of the Grand Alliance and the Second Front 1939-1942" by Derek Watson (Europe-Asia Studies , Jan., 2002, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 51-85), and I don't see how they support your claim.

Your first source says:

"Churchill took up Stalin's suggestion but there was strong opposition within the cabinet to a treaty which, it was feared, might meet with an unfavourable reception from public opinion. There was also a principled objection to Churchill's idea that the treaty should say something of post-war frontiers and the United States ambassador, Winant, was vehement in his opposition to this proposal. The prime minister came round to the view that it was best to avoid all political questions and to concentrate on fighting the war, and no mention of a pact was made in the reply which he sent to Stalin.23 The result of these exchanges was a declaration signed by Cripps and Molotov which in rather bizarre Russian-English stated that both powers would 'render to each other assistance of all kinds in present war against Hitlerite Germany' "

In other words, the Cripps-Molotow agreement was by no means an alliance (for an alliance implies some common vision of teh post-war future), and Britain was doing her best to demonstrate that it was not. I would say, Atlantic chapter was more an alliance then the Cripps-Molotov agreement. Following your logic, the US should be considered the Ally before Pearl Harbor.

In addition, please, explain, which treaty was signed between the US and UK in 1941? The Atlantic Charter was signed earlier, other agreements (Casablanca, Tehran etc) took place later. Some minor agreements signed in December 1941 were technical, and they cannot be considered as any full scale alliance. If no adequate response from you will be obtained, I am going to revert your edits per OR. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

They weren't my edits. You are engaging in Budgeoning Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. I think you need to calm down and wait to see what others think. You can ask for a RfC or a third party opinion if you wish. But you haven't grasped what I and @Whizz40 are saying. The issue isn't necessarily a formal alliance, but some degree of diplomatic and/or military cooperation is necessary for two nations to become allies in the ordinary English meaning of the word. I have already explained at length that the UK and France had a high level of diplomatic and military cooperation against Germany in September 1939. That made them allies. No one has said otherwise and I don't understand why you keep bringing this red herring up. But the Soviet Union is a different kettle of fish. There was no high level diplomatic and/or military cooperation the moment Nazi Germany invaded Russia. Churchill gave a speech that day in which he made a vague offer of cooperation but pointedly refused to call the Soviet Union an ally. Both sides were distrustful of each other and rather prickly negotiations were conducted over the next weeks. It didn't help that Stalin was missing in action over this period and wasn't giving a clear direction to the Soviet leadership. An agreement was finally reached on 12 July. That's when they became allies. I understand you disagree, but you really should step back now and let others have their say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

WRT "They weren't my edits," it is an obviously a false claim: these three edits ([1] and [2], were yours. And you were opposed by TWO other users, me and Slatersteven.

I see that you provided a source that ostensibly supports you claim. The quote provided by you says:

"On the political front, the Soviet Union and Great Britain had signed an agreement in Moscow on July 12, 1941. Requested by Stalin as a sign of cooperation, it provided for mutual assistance and an understanding not to negotiate or conclude an armistice or peace except by mutual consent. Soviet insistence on such an agreement presumably reflected their suspicion of Great Britain, though there is no evidence that either party to it ever ceased to have its doubt about the loyalty of the other if attractive alternatives were thought to be available."

I have no idea how this quote supports the claim that Soviet Union joined the Allies by signing this agreement. WP:NOR says: Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

In connection to that, I am wondering where did you find in this source the claim that USSR joined the Allies on 12 July 1941.

Furthermore, according to your own words, Churchill initially refused to call the USSR an ally. However, your own source (Martin Kitchen) calls the Cripps-Molotov agreement signed on 12 July 1941 "a declaration", and there is no indication the author claimed that these two power became the allies on 12 of July.

And, finally, I still see no proof of your claim that the Ally is a power that was considered as an ally by the UK. Such a British-centered approach does not reflect the majority POV, and it seems that is a piece of OR.

___________________________________

You are making false claims by saying that the edits, which you obviously made, were made not by you.

You are introducing original research into the article, because it seems the source added by you does not support your claim.

You are accusing me of improper behaviour, although it is you who violates our policy.

I think it is you who should stop.

WRT "not grasping something", you were absolutely right when you said that "some degree of diplomatic and/or military cooperation is necessary for two nations to become allies in the ordinary English meaning of the word." That is exactly what I am saying. However, that argument undermines your own point. Indeed:

• there was extensive cooperation between France and Britain before September 1939, but the infobox says they became the Allies only in Sept 1939 (i.e. when they became co-belligerents);
• the US and UK extensively cooperated before Pearl Harbor, but the infobox says the US became the Ally only in Dec 1941 (i.e. when the US became co-belligerents).

In both cases, the date is not the date when "some degree of diplomatic and/or military cooperation" was established, but these dates are the dates when they became co-belligerents. Therefore, I am wondering why you are attempting to apply different rules to different countries.

Your own arguments undermine your position. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I came to a conclusion that the main Aemilius Adolphin's point ("The Soviet Union didn't automatically "join" the allies the moment it was attacked by Germany, it joined them when a formal military agreement was signed with the leading allied power at the time, which was the UK.") is a pure British-centered OR. The Allies was not a group of countries allied with the UK. Even this Wikipedia article says otherwise. Aemilius Adolphin should edit the lede first, and to convince us to support that change, and only after that the change of dates may be possible. Furthermore, Aemilius Adolphin's logic contradicts to what we know about the Allies: they grouped not around Britain, but around the Atlantic charter. Some of them (Britain, USSR) became co-belligerents before signing the charter, some of them (e.g. the US) - after that. Therefore, the date in the infobox must reflect the moment when each country declared a war with the Axis. Everything else is either confusing of it is OR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense. The allies existed before Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The first inter-allied conference was in June 1941. The Atlantic Charter wasn't until August. So if the Allies were those who gathered around the Atlantic charter, then the Soviet Union wasn't an ally because it didn't sign the Atlantic charter. You are undermining your own justification for your preferred dates in the infobox. Please take a break and let others comment. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"The allies existed before Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The first inter-allied conference was in June 1941." Is it supposed to mean that we should put "June 1941" above British and French flags in the infobox? Come on, that is ridiculous: France and Britain were the allies long before September 1939, however the infobox says "Sept 1939" (the date of beginning of their co-belligerence).

"So if the Allies were those who gathered around the Atlantic charter, then the Soviet Union wasn't an ally because it didn't sign the Atlantic charter." Yes, that sounds reasonable. However, if we apply this principle universally, then all other powers should be considered the Allies only after the date they signed the Charter. I would support this approach, but that makes the dates in the infobox redundant (most powers signed the Charter simultaneously). Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, in contrast to you, I am making a perfect sense. The process of formation of the huge coalition that was later dubbed "the Allies" was long and gradual. It includes several agreements about mutual assistance, joint declarations, the Atlantic charter etc. However, it is hard to name the date after which the Alliance was formed. Just re-read Gorodetsky or Kitchen (your own sources) and find a quote where these authors say the Alliance was established. There is no such a date. Moreover, there may be significant disagreement among different authors about that, so you task is not only to provide a source, but also to demonstrate that your source express a majority view. Therefore, your approach is deeply flawed.

In contrast, the starting date of co-belligerence is pretty well defined (the date of de facto start of hostilities or the date of war declaration). That means my approach is absolutely non-controversial and verifiable. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It does seme easier and more verifiable to use the date of entry into the war. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed that.

In addition, the Aemilius Adolphin's edits were misleading. The edit in the lede implied that German invasion of USSR started in July (" joined the Allies in July 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union"), and the date in the infobox was linked to the Operation Barbarossa, which started in June, not July.

Similarly, the start date for the UK is linked to the British declaration of war on Germany, and American starting date is linked to Pearl harbor.

That means, the article in general uses the date of entry into the war as the date.

Frankly, the amount of time and efforts needed to explain so obvious things to Aemilius Adolphin is becoming unacceptably high. Any further attempt to implement a totally new concept (the date of signing an alliance with Britain instead of the current concept: the date of entry into the war) without obtaining consensus on the talk page will be considered as disruptive. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

For the Soviet Union, that would be September 1939 when they attacked Poland. For China that would be 1937, the date of the second Sino-Japanese war. So it isn't as simple as you think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

China is a tricky case: it didn't declare a war on Japan in 1937 because the US insisted on that: that would prevent the US from providing military aid to China. Therefore, China's "non-belligerence" was a secret of Polichinelle for all contemporaries.

In contrast, neither Britain nor France declared a war on USSR in 1939. Soviet Union didn't declare a war on Poland, and Poland didn't declare a war on USSR either.

Therefore, if we assume (as majority of sources do) that declaration of a war on Germany or Japan was considered a moment when some power become the Ally, everything looks pretty simple. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A declaration of war and an entry into war are two different phenomena, having nothing to do with each other. Germany has never declared war on Poland. Poland did not declare war on Germany either (why should it?), but no RS claims that there was no war between Poland and Germany. A declaration of war is simply a diplomatic courtesy, used relatively rarely. In modern conflicts, very rarely. Often, allied states simply communicate to the attacking side that they are at war as of a given moment due to the aggressor's actions, above all if they do not intend to take military action in the near future. This is how Poland 'declared war' on Japan, for example.

The Soviet Union entered the Second World War in 1939 as the aggressor party, in close consultation and coordination with Nazi Germany. To claim otherwise is to promote ahistorical theories. Marcelus (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You have already expressed your view many times. Currently we have a properly sourced statement which shows that the Soviet Union joined the allies when it reached an agreement for military cooperation with Britain on 12 July 1941. I have reverted to this version. You will need to find a source which explicity states that the Soviet Union joined the allies the moment Germany invaded it. This ignores the history of what actually happened after the attack. As I said, please let other have their say and we will go with whatever consensus emerges. And merely entering hostilies without some degree of military, strategic and political cooperation isn't as uncontroversial as you think. For example, China entered the war against Japan in 1937. So the date China became an ally would be 1937 under your preferred option. The Soviet Union entered the war in 1939. So they were one of the Axis Powers in 1939? They certainly asked Nazi Germany to join the Tripartite Pact. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You provided a source that says that Molotov and Cripps signed a declaration on July 12, 1941, but this source does not say that the USSR joined the Allies by signing that declaration. Therefore, your statement is not properly sourced.

WRT " You will need to find a source which explicity states that the Soviet Union joined the allies the moment Germany invaded it", that was not hard at all. In a couple of mouse clicks, I found multiple sources:

"After Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, Stalin abandoned his attitude of pro-Axis neutrality and joined the Allies" (Jan T. Gross. A Note on the Nature of Soviet Totalitarianism. Soviet Studies, Jul., 1982, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Jul., 1982), pp. 367-376.)

"When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, Stalin joined the Allies." ([3])

"After the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviets joined the Allies in fighting the Nazis". (S Langford. Katyn: The Memory. - Politics, Bureaucracy & Justice, 2012

The German army invaded the Soviet Union in the infamous Operation Barbarossa of June 1941, promptly ending the 1939 neutrality pact. Following the invasion, Stalin joined Britain against the Axis" (Lior Sternfeld “Poland Is Not Lost While We Still Live”: The Making of Polish Iran, 1941–45. Jewish Social Studies Vol. 23, No. 3 (Spring/Summer 2018), pp. 101-127.

In contrast, there are just 13 sources that mention Molotov and Cripps in a context of "joined the Allies". Incidentally, one of the sources from that list says:

"However, the main disagreement was about the Soviet Union, before and definitely after it was invaded on 22 June 1941 and joined the Allies" ,

and says nothing about the Molotov-Cripps declaration. Other sources say nothing about that declaration either.

I am restoring the stable version, which is fully supported with reliable sources. You are persistently trying to introduce your own OR. Please stop it. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I moved the citation from the lede to the article's body. That is in accordance with MOS:LEADCITE.

Actually, if the claim that USSR ostensibly joined the Allies in July is non-controversial, then no citation is needed per MOS. If it is controversial, we need to discuss it additionally in the article's body and NOT introduce into the lede and infobox. In both case, the citation was misplaced. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

WRT " For example, China entered the war against Japan in 1937. So the date China became an ally would be 1937 under your preferred option," that is a bad example. There is no consensus among scholars about the WWII start date. Majority of authors believe that SSJW was a separate conflict that merged with WWII only after Japan attacked the US and UK on Dec 1941. In any event, China could not be an Ally in 1937, because the Axis had not formalized by that time. By the moment SSJW started, the only formal agreements were Pact of steel (which didn't involve Japan) and Anti-Comintern pact (which was directed primarily against USSR). Therefore it would be impossible to speak about the Allies ("a military coalition formed during the Second World War (1939–1945) to oppose the Axis powers"), because no Axis existed in 1937. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the correctly sourced version and have added a second source. Please stop deleting sourced information and replacing it with unsourced information. The Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in June and in July the Soviets signed a military and political alliance with the UK which was the leading Allied power. That's when they became allies. The sources you have put here on the talk page simply state that the Soviet Union became an ally after the German invasion. I agree. The Anglo-Soviet agreement was after the German invasion. You also state that there are "only" 13 sources which state that the alliance was formed by the Anglo-Soviet agreement. That seems quite a lot of sources to me. I have no desire to engage in an edit war. I am happy for you to refer this to an independent third opinion and I undertake to abide by whatever that opinion is. I am also happy to compromise on the wording. Would you accept, "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies in June-July 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the signing of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement." Making the date June-July would be acceptable to me as it would reflect the time taken to reach an agreement due to the mutual suspicion between the parties. Also please note that the lead should be properly sourced just like the rest of the article, especially when there is an obvious disagreement between editors. "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't work like this.

You asked me to provide sources which explicity states that the Soviet Union joined the allies the moment Germany invaded it, and I provided several sources. Now you put forward a new argument, namely that the source saying that the USSR became the Ally after Germany invasion does not necessarily imply that it became the Ally immediately after that.

Ok, if you approach the dispute so formally, I cam respond in the same vein. Please, provide a source saying that the USSR joined the Allies not after German invasion, but as a result of signing the Molovov-Cripps agreement. In addition, I would like to see sources (multiple sources) saying that this declaration was not a declaration, but a full scale military alliance.

Furthermore, I would like to see a source saying that the Ally is the power that signed an alliance with Britain.

Until those sources have been presented, all your claims are just your original research. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, your reference to MOS undermines your position. If your claim (that Britain was a core Ally) is likely to be challenged, then it hardly can be presented as a fact, just as one out of several POVs. But if that is the case, why do you present it as the only POV? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This may be relevant. Please, read it if you are going to continue this dispute. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Now you are just making up stuff I didn't write and asking people whether it is reliably sourced. The sentence you removed from the article was this: "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies in July 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the signing of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am NOT making any stuff up. If we omit a non-controversial part, your sentence said:

"The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies in July 1941, after of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement."

You provided the sources that, as ALL participants of the RSN discussion concluded, does not support your text.

You continue to advocate the views that are not explicitly stated in the sources that you are using. This is original research. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are blaming me in your own sins. This is a false information: the July declaration was by no means an alliance. You introduced a false information into Wikipedia. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Aemilius Adolphin. The sources you cite simply state that the Soviet Union ended up in the Allied camp after the German attack, which took place in June 1941. None of them claim that the German invasion was equivalent to being in the Allied camp. It is possible to imagine a scenario in which the Soviet Union continued the war against Germany completely separate from the Western powers, without the need to coordinate the fight within a single alliance. (This would probably have been the case had the SU not been on the brink of disaster after a few weeks). Marcelus (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is only one part of AA's argument. AA says that USSR didn't join the Allies on June 22, but it did join the Allies on July 12, when Molotov and Cripps signed the declaration. The latter statement is not supported by the sources cited by AA.

Frankly speaking, I also agree that it would be incorrect to claim that on 22th for June 1941 the USSR automatically joined the Allies. However, if we use more formal criteria (e.g. signing of some agreement), then we have a problem. If "the Allies" refers to some formal military alliance, then Molotov-Cripps declaration cannot be considered as alliance (and had never been considered as such by historians). If this declaration was an alliance, then why Anglo-Soviet Treaty of 1942 was signed? If we accept AA's approach, we must write that USSR became the Ally only in 1942, which, obviously, not what historians say.

Furthermore, can anybody tell the exact date when the Grand Alliance was formed? When exactly the US, UK and USSR became full scale allies? I am not sure we can name some concrete document signed by all parties that marked the beginning of the Grand Alliance.

If the starting date is signing of declaration of United Nations, then all parties became the Allies simultaneously, and there is no need in footnotes at all.

If the starting date is the Atlantic charter, then the US should be considered the Ally before Pearl Harbor (which contradicts to the majority viewpoint).

I would go even further: the date of formation of the Axis is also unclear. "The Axis" is some umbrella term, and, for example, Finland is considered the Axis power, but it, in contrast to Romania or Hungary, never signed the main Axis treaty. Just think, in September 1939, Britain and France didn't declare war on the Axis: they declared war on Germany only. The Tripartite Pact was signed later, on 27 September 1940.

During WWII, both of the opposing alliances were in a process of formation even after the was officially started. Therefore, the standard approach of historians is: the countries joined the war first and formalized the alliance later. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

First and foremost, the 'Allies' were not a military alliance in the classical sense, but an agreement by several states to fight together against Nazi Germany. It was formed in 1939 and developed and changed its shape throughout the war. You have rightly pointed out that neither of these two categories, 'Allies' and 'Axis', is clearly defined, but this is not a problem, just a historical fact. The treaty of 12 July 1941 was the first agreement between the USSR and the UK clearly declaring joint struggle against Nazi Germany. Marcelus (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

- "First and foremost, the 'Allies' were not a military alliance in the classical sense" Absolutely correct.

- "but an agreement by several states to fight together against Nazi Germany" Wrong. Not "Germany", but "The Axis": the US joined the war not because of Germany.

- " It was formed in 1939 and developed and changed its shape throughout the war." Your "developed and changed" included a complete dissolution of the Anglo-French alliance after fall of France. Without France, the Allies included only the British Crown and dominions. It was hardly an alliance.

- "You have rightly pointed out that neither of these two categories, 'Allies' and 'Axis', is clearly defined, but this is not a problem, just a historical fact." We both rightly point that. The difference between us is that we draw different conclusions from that fact. I maintain that, as soon as "the Allies" is not a strictly defined and formal term, the attempt to link it to some formal bilateral agreement is intrinsically flawed and ahistorical.

The actual course of events was as follows: the powers that later would be called "the Allies" declared a war on one or several Axis countries, thereby becoming a de facto ally of "the Allies", and only after that the alliance was formalized. As another user correctly noted, it fully formalized only by signing the Declaration of United Nations, and if we want to be formal, we should use the date of its signing as a start date (which I would oppose to). Paul Siebert (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The name Allies is also used to refer to the powers that have been fighting only Nazi Germany since 1939. Do not impose your definition not based on WP:RS.

After the fall of France, the Allies included other non-British fighting nations (for example Poland), also soon after Free France joined the fight.

No, the Allies define the powers fighting against the Axis powers jointly or at least in agreement or coordination; on June 22, the Soviet Union had no such thing with any of the Allied powers. Marcelus (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Paul Siebert revert

@Paul Siebert why did you revert my edit? Give me substantial reason for that or restore my edit. Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:V. I still got no apologies from you. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

What is not verifable in the text I proposed. Marcelus (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of collapsing

I noticed that some involved users collapsed the above discussion. Per WP:COLLAPSENO that is not acceptable. I strongly encourage those who collapsed the posts made by others to self-revert.

Regards, Paul Siebert (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Both disputes I collapsed were fundamentally resolved. You proposed new wording, I encourage you to present it in the new post. I also advise you to be far more conciese, because you have a tendency to WP:EXHAUST nad WP:BLUDGEON, try also avoid WP:ICANTHEARYOU attitude.

Propose prefered version, provide justification for it, and let other users to comment on that. Marcelus (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I asked politely at the beginning of this section that people should give a brief one line statement to clarify whether they supported or didn't support my proposed compromise. I also indicated that extended discussion of any points they raised should go elsewhere on the thread (for example under another subsection). As other users have noted, it's almost impossible to follow the responses now and I think a collapsible box after each users' initial response and initial short justification is warranted. This will not close off discussion because if editors wish to continue a discussion on any particular point relevant to the proposed compromise wording, they can simply create a new subheading below and carry on the discussion there. @Marcelus If you are going to put a collapsible box after a comment you should do it after the original post and brief explanation and the user's signature. You cut off The Gnome's full response. Please move the box to the point after their signature. Thank you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't collapse the second discussion, I think it was done by @Random person no 362478479 ([4]) Marcelus (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, @Aemilius Adolphin, @Marcelus As Marcelus has pointed out, I was the first to collapse two parts of the straw poll section (one of those was reverted by someone). The point was not to cut off any discussions. I'm honestly sorry for creating that impression, I have absolutely no interest in suppressing any arguments or discussions here. The intention was to refactor the debate in the spirit in which this section was created, i.e. getting a short overview over where everyone stands regarding a specific proposal while leaving discussion to other sections. My action was intended as a formatting choice only, to separate the debate from the straw poll for the sake of readability. I can see how cutting off signatures by starting the collapsing after the first part of a post instead of starting the collapsing after a complete post may create issues and apologise for that choice. And again, I am sorry for creating the impression that I wanted to cut off the debate. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries, it's all fine, nothing was erased after all Marcelus (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: The discussion may be collapsed if all parties agree that some consensus is achieved. Have we already achieved consensus? In reality, you've written that you are glad that I stopped spreading a lye and almost immediately collapsed a discussion. Irrespective to everything else I demand you to explicitly and immediately apologize, or I'll report you.

@Aemilius Adolphin: The very idea to initiate a straw poll was flawed. A straw poll, especially when we are discussing such a convoluted issue, is supposed to be at the end of a discussion, not at the beginning. Imagine, some version wins, and that happens before we started to discuss all nuances? How would we deal with that situation?

WRT cutting off something, I am not sure I understand what exactly do you mean. If I accidenntally cut some commething off, and you know what exactly was affected, please, do me a favour: revert my edits and fix the text.

Thank you in advance. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert@MarcelusIt looks like the info box is generating the most heat. What if we remove all dates after the Big Three? Just state that the Big Three were the UK, Soviet Union and US? There's no need for the dates under the Former Axis powers either. We can explain their movement in the body of the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As I already explained, it seems the dates were added because there was an agreement that the Big Three should be listed not in the order the leaders appear in the WWII article (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, which reflects a relative role of each of three Ally), but in a chronological order, and the criterion was the date they declared a war on the Axis (or some Axis member). If we remove the date, then it would be logical to restore the order to "1. USSR, 2. USA, 3. Britain". Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States. Alpha order is the most neutral. The problem will be getting agreed wording on any footnotes. I'll have a think about it and see what others think. Cheers Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we may keep the general order of joining the Allies, because our controversy (June or July) doesn't affect the said order. Marcelus (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean the same order as in the mother article (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill). Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Does "Alpha" means alphabetical? If yes, then you again are challenging the previously achieved consensus. I see no reason to change the current text at all. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that removing the dates is not a bad idea. But I think footnotes should then be used to clearly explain the Soviet Union's entanglement in cooperation with Germany before 1941, as well as the circumstances of joining the Allies. The same goes for other major powers. This is important context that should not be overlooked. Marcelus (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

Soviet Union joined the allies in February 1943 I'm pretty sure. Not in 1941 Soulzsadsa (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)