Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Stick to sources

In regards to the above discussions, there's no need to debate what constituted an 'independent' country and if these should be automatically included or not. Let's stick to what can actually be sourced. For example, does anyone have any sources which state that Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico were among the 'Allies' of the war? - this looks ridiculous and I've never seen it in a published source. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick you are correct, Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico were not Allies of WW II. They need to be deleted--Woogie10w (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree--Jacurek (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. "Who fought in WWII" is one of the classic cases of creeping inclusionism on Wikipedia. Everyone wants to say "my country did that too" and "lots of Alaskans/Puerto Ricans/Hawaiians give their lives" is hard to argume with. But I think we have to here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants Alaska to be included into the article, he must provide a solid ground for such a claim. However, the ground must be really solid (so I don't believe it is possible).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How much autonomy did Hawaii have anyway? --Martintg (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly not that much, it was an incorporated territory meaning integral part of the United States. It did however had a working government and constitution. Out of the three it was only Puerto Rico that was not incorporated.--23prootie (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To discuss Hawaii seriously, at least one reliable source has to be presented that confirms that Hawaii was an independent state, for instance, an evidence must be presented that the local government had an authority to declare a war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is Bahawalpur (princely state) listed as an Allied nation?. This is new to me, only on Wikipedia is it listed an Allied nation. Is there a verifiable source for this post?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 23prootie

Sorry 23prootie don't take it personally but you did make few bad changes to the article recently. I was just wondering if you could stop making changes for a while or talk to people on the talk page before making them? And again please do not be offended o.k.? Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would stop making "bad edits" if you specify what they are and how "bad" they are exactly. And I'm not going to be offended if the reason has some basis.--23prootie (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well...edits such as placing Ethiopia as a major Allie "sandwiched" between Poland and France for example...but there is more and sorry (again no offence) but it is embarrassing to talk about it...just read the talk page please.--Jacurek (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see ya'll talking here. Please come to a consensus about what countries to include in the lead prior to any more alterations. I'm sure you will find that it's a much better way to do what we're all here to do... to improve the article and, thus, Wikipedia. This is not an easy debate to settle. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a brief mention in the lede of every society that acted against the Axis powers. The article is titled "Allies of World War II" after all. Just a very brief mention, though, as they can be elaborated upon later in the body of the article. If you disagree with this, then you need to have a very good reason, because the very good reason I've heard for including the allies in the lede is that they ALL deserve to be mentioned in the lede. Each and every country, each and every individual who fought and died, or who fought and lived, or who helped in any way to propel the Allies forward to victory deserve to be mentioned. Of course, I don't expect you to include my dad in the lede, or even in the article; however, every society, every national group of people, does deserve mention. That's a hard reality to get around. So good luck in your endeavors. And please, please settle your diffs here, because edit warring cannot and does not improve articles nor Wikipedia!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Paine_Ellsworth I appreciate your comment however comparing Ethiopian contribution to French is "a little" to much don't you think? Also you don't see anything wrong with elevating Mexico, Brazil or Belgium for example to a status of "major ally" in the lead and placing them next to Canada or Poland? Please...--Jacurek (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Paine_Ellsworth ..by the way 23prootie just reverted everything so the nonsense continues, partly because of your not well thought comment. Good luck in fixing the article because I will not help you anymore. Once Salvation Army and the Vatican finds its way to a major ally list next to the UK and the US, I will let you know.--Jacurek (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Jacurek, you're right on about the Edit summary comment. I suppose I was just a little frustrated, because everytime I turned around (it seemed) I was coming back here to clean up minor errors. But you're right, that's our job, too. Keep on keepin' on, and Best of Everything to You and Yours!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem..I was frustrated when I wrote that comment also. Of course I will help.--Jacurek (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think comparing any of the allies to each other is a little too much, Jacurek. They're all allies. It was the Ethiopian war just before WWII that broke up the League of Nations and pushed the Italian fascists into the lap of the Nazis. It was the Allies that cleaned Italy out of Ethiopia allowing H. Selassie back into Addis Ababa (New Flower) and reconstitute his feudal state (the last feudal state in the world, by the way). I wouldn't be surprised if the Axis powers didn't have a covert hand in it as well, because the Nazis knew they needed Italy. There are no clear-cut lines here, Jacurek, neither sharply defined territories (For example, the huge Ogaden desert, while at the time claimed by both Ethiopia and Italy, had for the most part Somalian nomads roaming there. Still does in fact, even though now the whole desert is claimed by Ethiopia.) nor is the timeline clear-cut. Several violent events happened before WWII "officially" began, and if they hadn't happened, there might not have been a WWII. As much as I feel great disdain for what Haile S. did to his countrymen on a national level, he, by virtue of being the emperor of Ethiopia, was after all one of the Allied leaders of WWII.

Also, I don't think anybody thinks of Mexico, Brazil or Belgium as "major allies", but the title of this article is not "Major Allies of WWII", is it. Let me state finally that I have no stake in how this debate turns out. The only consideration I have is for improvement of this article. So if you two must edit war, please watch your punctuation and other minor stuff. And 23prootie? In my opinion you are making the Republic of China link way too focused. Linking directly to the TOP of the Republic of China article does the job much better. It's more focused than China, but not "too" focused.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  17:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Article protected

Given the recent edit-warring, I've locked the article for two weeks. Although there have been some violations of the spirit (if not perhaps the letter!) of WP:3RR, I hope that by not applying any individual sanctions I can encourage all involved editors to engage productively here on the talk page without worrying about what others are doing on the article. The protection's duration can be extended or reduced as necessary; if changes that can be shown to have consensus are required in the meantime, you can use {{editprotected}} to request an admin to make the edit. EyeSerene^talk 10:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit needed in lede sentence

{{editprotected}} "The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed to the Axis powers during the Second World War." Thank you very much!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  01:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Obvious grammatical error so Done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rjd0060!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Norway

I think the changes that have been made to this article make sense, and it is also correct that Norway is still on the list, for several reasons. First of all, Norway fought the German invaders for two months (9 April - 10 June, 1940) in mainland Norway, alone and together with the Allies (UK, France and Poland). The subsequent government-in-exile controlled the gold reserves and what was the fourth largest, and perhaps most modern, merchant fleet in the World (Nortraship), and paid for the rebuilding of the Norwegian military. The relationship with the UK was formalised with the Armed Forces Agreement on 28 May, 1941. If we are going to be very technical about it there were also parts of the Kingdom of Norway that remained unoccupied. The weather station on Jan Mayen began sending their reports to the UK, and although the Norwegians abandoned the station for some months the island was never under German control. Svalbard was also never under German control, although they did operate some weather stations on the archipelago after 1943. Norwegian military personnel also set foot on the mainland again as the Soviets began the liberation of northern Norway in late 1944. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 11:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede's first sentence

It has some issues that I would like to discuss.
The first lede's sentence is:

"The Allies of World War II were the countries, satellite states, colonies or political and military organizations that were officially or unofficially opposed to the Axis powers during the Second World War. "

Firstly, the guidelines do not require citations to be in the lede. Therefore, I don't understand the need of the citation in the first sentence. Secondly, the source does not support the text. EB states that:

"In World War II the chief Allied Powers were Great Britain, France (except during the German occupation, 1940–44), the Soviet Union (after its entry in June 1941), the United States (after its entry on Dec. 8–11, 1941), and China. More generally the Allies included all the wartime members of the United Nations, the signatories to the Declaration of the United Nations. The original signers, of Jan. 1, 1942, were Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, Salvador, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, and Yugoslavia; subsequent wartime signers were the Philippines, Mexico, Ethiopia, Iraq, Free French, and Free Danes."

Therefore, the definition of the Allies as "the countries, satellite states, colonies or political and military organizations that were officially or unofficially opposed to" is in contradiction with the cited source, that provides a limited and concrete list of the Allies.
Moreover, even if we leave EB behind the scope, the word "unofficially" made the definition redundantly vague and, as a result, made possible to include all non-Axis countries into the list. I modified it accordingly. Thirdly, what does "The Allies of World War II were the countries, satellite states, colonies or political and military organizations" mean? Since the Red Army or Chinese Communists were, accordingly, military and political organisations, then we have to name them among the Allies separately (alnog with the USSR and ROC). Of course, it is a nonsense. I changed that.
The Allies were the states, or, in limited number of cases, the underground movements that were subsequently recognized as the governments of their states. The Allies were independent countries, i.e. the countries that were considered independent by at least one reliable source, and the countries whose governments had a right to declare a war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we also want to make a distinction between formal allies and co-belligerents, it would be useful. --149.135.66.235 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The list above is what I have been advocating all along. There is an official list but some people (Jacurek) keep insisting that only "indepedent" states belong to the list thinking they could edge out the Philippines and India. I think all countires listed above should be included in the heading.--23prootie (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the lead should include the big four only. They made the important strategy decisions for the war effort. As for the Philippines and India they should be included on the list, both nations made important contributions as semi-independant nations with separate armies. the Philippines military had 57,000 dead, more than Australia and New Zealand combined 52,000. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Finally someone listened to my suggestions.--23prootie (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So lets keep the lead simple and to the point and include just the big four. If we include one lesser country, we will have edit wars. The Philippines held the Japanese back for six months which allowed Australia and New Zealand to build up their defences, also they fought as guerrillas when the Austrailians were in New Guniea.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, a good lead should rather immediately make clear two things to avoid further confusion. Firstly, that "Allies of WWII" is only a loosely defined (nick)name for one of the two "opposing sides" of the World War. Secondly, that several countries (including major powers) "switched sides" during WWII. After that, and only after that, would it make sense to proceed with the more or less officially defined list of Allies (making clear which of them joined, or switched sides, and when). Cheers,3 Löwi (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is Bahawalpur (princely state) listed as an Allied nation?. This is new to me, only on Wikipedia is it listed an Allied nation. Is there a verifiable source for this post?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually have no idea. I tried removing it (way back in February), when I was trying to place Egypt in the article, but every time I did do that someone reverted so there must be someone with a reason why they placed it here.--23prootie (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You were the editor who added it. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the February logs and stop attaking me. As far as I'm concerned you are the one who got me blocked (and tried removing the Philippines from the article)[1] (Interestingly, the link I placed has Bawalpur in it...). --23prootie (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets delete Bahawalpur (princely state), Egypt was only a nominal ally, they did no fighting at all.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Paraguay and Liberia are allies yet they probably did less than French Indochina or Luxembourg. Being an ally does not include battle alone. Political maneuverings as well as the civilian impact also play a part in their role in World War II.----23prootie (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Belarus, Ukraine, and the Lede section

Hey guys, I think I have an idea on what to put in the lede section. This source A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 Interim Meeting of Foreign Ministers, Moscow] basically has two list, namely:

• Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America, China, France, Australia, Belgium, Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Greece, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Union of South Africa, Yugoslavia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

• Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States, China, France, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and the Philippine Commonwealth.

So I guess that's pretty obvious who to list. (With the noteworthy inclusions of Belarus and Ukraine).--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Stalin insisted Ukraine and Belorussia to be a separate members of UNO, however it was a purely formal step (and, importantly, it was done post factum). In addition, Avalon project contains primary sources. We cannot draw any conclusions based on primary sources.
In connection to that, do you have any secondary source that mention Ukraine or Belorussia among belligerents during WWII (not after)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm fine in excluding those two, but what I am trying to say is that there is an explicit inclusion of Brazil, India, Ethiopia, South Africa, and the Philippine Commonwealth so there should be no controversy on those states.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 05:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tuva removed

This article is about the independent states that comprised the Allies....

Tannu Tuva, was under Soviet control and WAS NOT an independent country. Since this list is the list of INDEPENDENT countries that joined Allies, Tuva does not belong here. Please refer to this[[2]] for more information. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Tuva looks odd taking into account that Newfoundland is still in the article. It is not clear from your source how independent Tuva and Mongolia were, so your conclusion doesn't follow directly from what the source says. In addition, the source provided by you is not an academic source. It is quite unclear where the information presented there was taken from (probably, from Wikipedia itself). In addition, the site's major subject is aviation, not history. You should use more serious sources to support your claims. Anyway, I posted a question there [3], let's wait for an answers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, but if you decide to reinsert Tuva and Mongolia into the list, please provide a valid source that these countries were fully independent and recognized internationally, please. I expect you not to insert these countries WITHOUT a valid source. Thanks Paul.--Jacurek (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article tells nothing about international recognition of the Allied states, just about their independence. You seem to add this new criterion by yourself. Obviously, this criterion is ridiculous during WWII: the world was divided onto two parts each of which didn't recognize many members of the opposing bloc. In that situation, the term "international recognition" becomes vague and useless. You simply try to project a present days' situation on the past.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. I believe, formal independence is sufficient to consider a state independent during WWII. If some country is not a colony, it should be considered independent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If a puppet set up by invading foreign forces declared independence(like Manchukuo, WW2 Croatia, Slovakia etc), then it was to become an independent country? This was ridiculous. Vulturedroid (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PPS. Re: "I expect you not to insert these countries WITHOUT a valid source." You provided no reliable source supporting your deletion, moreover, you deleted Tuva after the source has been added stating that "Напомним, что с 1921 по 1944 годы Тува была независимой, потом добровольно вошла в состав СССР." ("Let's remind you that from 1921 to 1944 Tuva was independent, and voluntarily entered the USSR in 1944"). In other words, you deleted a sources material without providing proper sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, let's wait for a third opinion.--Jacurek (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We need not a new opinion, but new arguments. If no reasonable arguments will be provided (by you or by someone else), I'll restore the material removed by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: " if you decide to reinsert Tuva and Mongolia into the list, please provide a valid source" You removed Tuva from a stable version, therefore the burden of evidence rests with you. You seem not to sustain this burden so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not do that without providing reliable sources that these states were indeed fully independent. I already provided a source (two) that they were not independent and not even recognized as states by anybody but the USSR. If you deside to do that please back it up with the source. Thanks Paul.--Jacurek (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No. First, "not even recognized" is not an argument. International recognition is the next step towards full independence: a country initially got independence, and only after that they become recognized (or not recognized) by other states. For Tuva and Mongolia, small, isolated and remote countries, there were no reason to seek contacts with major world powers, the only country they contacted with was the USSR. That doesn't mean automatically that they were not independent. Second, your sources do not confirm that Tuva was not independent (leaving aside a question of reliability of your source, let me remind you that formal independence does not exclude some degree of external control), whereas the source you deleted clearly states that it was. In addition, your interpretation of the article's criteria is not fully correct: as I already pointed out, for WWII time it would be sufficient that the country is not a colony. Neither Tuva nor Mongolia were colonies by that time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, we really need somebody else to step in. We are totally on the opposite ends of the stick. I don't agree with you even a bit but I don't want to argue anymore. Could you arrange neutral third opinion on this issues? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that the League of Nations existed until 1946, an independent state for the purposes of this section should be one that is listed in League of Nations members. --Martintg (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No Free France, no Tuvia, no Mongolia there....--Jacurek (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

...as well as the USSR. You probably know that the USSR was believed to be excluded from the Leagu after it started Winter war. Although some sources ague that that decision was illegal, the USSR is believed not to be the member of the League by 1941. Do you propose to exclude it from the article based on that ground?

Generally speaking, membership in the League of Nations was not a necessary attribute of independence. Your argument doesn't work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it works, USSR joined in 1934 as an independent country. Tuvia and Mongolia would not have this opportunity because they were not recognized by anybody, they were not independent and would not be admitted. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The USSR as a country emerged in 1922, when no one recognised it yet, it was an independent country before it become a member of the League, and it remained an independent country after it was excluded. Therefore, it was possible for a country to be independent and not to be the member of the League of Nation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But this does not change the fact that Tuvia fro example was NEVER independent.--Jacurek (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide a support for that statement. At least one source (the source you deleted) clearly states that it was.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well my two sources[[4]][[5]] clearly state that it was not.--Jacurek (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your first source clearly tells that the period from 1921 to 1944 was a perion of independence of Tuva, whereas the second source is not reliable enough.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Two sources that are contradicting themselves...Who recognized that country other that USSR? Why did they join the war? I need to find answer to this questions before listing it as and FULLY independent country and an Allie.--Jacurek (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a refusal to get a point: I already wrote that recognition is not a necessary trait of independence. The decision to join a war might be dictated by different reasons. For instance, for Mongolia it was clear: Axis victory meant a conquest of Mongolia by Japan (Nomongan incident). For Tuva the reason was not so clear, however, I have no intentions to analyze it here. Again, we have three sources, one source, removed by you, tells that Tuva was independent, the second source (yours) tells that 1921-44 was a period of Tuva's independence, and the third source seems to be not reliable. Tuva (and Momgolia) must be restored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect, this argument: country X was independent therefore it was an ally, seems like synthesis. Is there a source that lists Mongolia and Tuva as official members of the allies? --Martintg (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources contradict themselves but there is nothing I could find that CLEARLY says that Mongolia and Tuvia were fully independent and official Allies.--Jacurek (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if the sources are contradictory then we should be cautious here and be careful that we don't synthesize that they were official allies. My preference would be to omit them until a definitive source is found. --Martintg (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) Re: "Is there a source that lists Mongolia and Tuva as official members of the allies?" Did the organisation named "The Allies" formally exist? I doubt. What really existed were the primary allies (Poland, tyhe UK and France), and the countries that became the allies of one of those Allies (either directly, or by signing an alliance with some new ally, or simply by declaring the war on the Axis). For instance, the USSR became the British ally (not Polish), however, I doubt is the reason for not list it among the Allies. Similarly, Tuva declared a war on Germany and became the Soviet ally. The source states that clearly, and that is a quite sufficient to consider it the Ally.
Re: "I think if the sources are contradictory then we should be cautious" Two of three sources state that Tuva was independent. A third source is not reliable [6]. What contradiction do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Re: "is nothing I could find that CLEARLY says that Mongolia and Tuvia were fully independent and official Allies" I don't think it is reasonable to expect a source to exist that contained both this statements together. For instance you will never find any source claiming that Britain fully independent and official Ally...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The source (provided by you) states:

"Actually, Stalin's empire also swallowed a fourth state during World War II-Tuva, a country the size of Greece (170 000 sq. km.)-but what happened to that country on 11 October 1944 passed unnoticed by the world. Even Soviet citizens were initially denied knowledge of a widening of their country's borders. The first news of the event in Russian was published not in Moscow but in the 1 November 1944 issue of Tuvinskaya Pravda, published in Kyzyl.1 The events in Tuva in the autumn of 1944 are shrouded in silence even now-a silence which it is difficult to explain. It is sad that even Western accounts of World War II fail to mention either Tuva as a participant in the war (soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44), or the expansion of the Soviet Union at the expense of Tuva's territory.
Forgetting Tuva while remembering the disappearance of the Baltic states seems even more perplexing when we recall that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had been part of the Russian empire since the 18th century, while Tuva had been in the Russian sphere of influence only from 1912 and formed part of it from 1914 to 1921.

"The period of independence of Tuva, a country squeezed in between Russia and Mongolia, was short (1921-44), and its contacts were limited to its nearest neighbours. Nevertheless, there are sufficient grounds to speak not only of an independent internal and foreign policy, but also to argue that Tuva set an example to the world by abandoning Stalinist socialism in 1932/33 and holding its own for a whole six years."

"In November 1911 Mongolia, which had also been subjected to China, declared itself independent and elected the local spiritual leader or bogdo-gegen as head of state. This provided an impetus also to the neighbouring Tuva. On 15 February 1912 the local elite declared Tuva an independent country, expressed their desire to install the supreme spiritual leader as head of state, and addressed a plea for protection and defence to Russia."

"In fact, Tuva only became independent three years later. Both in Mongolia and Tuva the course of events was influenced by the Red Army. After the crushing of the bands led by the Baltic baron von Ungern Sternberg, the power of the bogdo-gegen was restored in Mongolia and a foundation was laid for that country's independence (not recognised by China until 1946). The decision about the independence of Tuva was made at the meeting on 26 June 1921 in Chadan, but not all khoshuns (districts) were represented there."

"..the Supreme Soviet decided, on 28 February 1992, to publish all the secret documents linked with 'the voluntary entry' of Tuva into the USSR.65 The most astonishing thing which was revealed was that juridically Tuva is still now at war with Hitler's Germany!"

(Tuva. A State Reawakens Author(s): Toomas Alatalu Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5 (1992), pp. 881-895)

I believe, this article states clearly that both Mongolia and Tuva became independent states in 1920s. I'll remove the quotes soon to avoid copyright violation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. If someone will not provide an equally reliable source (a scientific journal article or a book published by some university publishing house, or something equal) I'll restore Tuva and Mongolia in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you need to remove the quotes, as they are quite small and this would qualify as fair use, I believe. All that we can glean from the quote is that soldiers from Tuva fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44. There is no information that they fought in the uniform of the Tuvan Army, they may well have been volunteers in the Red Army (or even conscripts, which would put into question Tuvan independance). Surely there must be some published work that has a comprehensive list of all the allies, otherwise this article is in danger of becoming the result of original research. In Eastern destiny: Russia in Asia and the North Pacific By G. Patrick March on page 200:

"Tuva's sovereign status would only be recognized by Soviet Russian and Mongolia, and the new "state" was more completely dominated by Moscow than it had been by Saint Petersburg while in its earlier role as an official protectorate"

Note that Patrick March placed the term state in quotes. --Martintg (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The uniform does not matter, because some "Allies" (e.g. some Latin American countries) participate in virtually no hostilities at all. The fact that Tuva declared a war on Germany a couple of days after Barbarossa started is clear from another source. From the fact that Tuva formally is still at war with Germany we can conclude that it was an official declaration of war. March's comparison between Soviet and Imperial influence hardly proves anything taking into account that before 1914 Russian influence in Tuva was minimal.
By contrast, Alatalu draws a direct parallelism between Baltic states and Tuva. Taking into account that recognition of sovereign status by more that one state is not an obligatory criterion for a state to be included into the article, I see no reason for not restoring Tuva.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me a discussion about a half-empty/half-full glass. I propose a compromise: to include Tuva and Mongolia and to add that these two country were informally dominated by the USSR (under informally I mean that they were neither colonies/dominions nor protectorates of the latter).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If I get no reasonable counter proposal, I'll implement the proposed edit in the article tomorrow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark R. Beissinger in Nationalist mobilization and the collapse of the Soviet State on page 229 states:

"Throughout its period of independence Tuvan sovereignty had been a questionable affair, since by the late 1920s what had originally been established as a buffer state between China and Soviet Russia had been transformed into a Soviet puppet state along the Mongolian model."

I agree to your proposal is it was added that these two counties were Soviet puppet states. --Martintg (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not more puppet that CzSSR was. Some sources available for me directly tell about Soviet interference into Tuva's domestic affairs, however, they describe that as occasional actions against the independent state. Other sources state that the most literare part of Tuvinian population was pro-Soviet, and I believe they have a ground for such claim, because even Stalinist USSR was more progressive society that traditional society in Tuva. (The quotes are available upon request) Therefore, I believe, "under Soviet influence" is more correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections anymore. --Jacurek (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with adding Tannu Tuva and Mongolia because I don't find any excuse to exclude them other than racism (the probable reason why widely recognized allied states, namely India and the Philippines, were previously excluded). I would also like to add colonies that had over a million casualties like the Dutch East Indies and French Indochina, both of which clearly carried a huge burden during the war. The inclusion, meanwhile is based on its inclusion in the Statute of Westminster, which gives it pseudo-independent status.--23prootie (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

However French Indochina was administered by Vichy France, which was aligned with Nazi Germany. --Martintg (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. Assume good faith; no need to brandish the card. Perhaps they were "excluded" (ie, not included) because someone forgot to put them in, or didn't know they were Allies, or a whole host of other reasons. Presuming "racism" at every turn is hardly conducive to elevated discourse. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents about the problem of Tuva and Mongolia.
In my opinion, the problem is badly put. Were Mongolia and TT independent States? In general literature the answer is "yes", they were independent at least as Polonia, East Germany, Hungary & Co during the Cold War. But the problem is that this article must not speak about independent States (referring to a legal status), it must speak about recognized States, referring to a political status. How can we say that Mongolia and TT joined the UN during the war? How can they be allied with nations (UK and US) that didn't have relationships with them? Where did their armies fight? And, if there were no German ambassador in Ulan Bator, how could Mongolia declare war on Germany? With a postcard?? Yes, the Mongolian governament could unilaterally declare itself in a state of war, but what difference could exist in this situation, with the possibility that the Association of Free Farmers might declare itself in war against Germany?--79.24.128.87 (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Defeated Axis Powers

I removed the defeated Axis Powers from the list. Their previous inclusion in the list was completely uncorrect both on an international law plan and on political plan. Certainly, they were granted the status of cobelligerant countries, but they were never accepted between the United Nations (in fact, they were allowed to join the UNO only in 1955). Their status allowed them to declare war on Germany if they wished, but their goal was only to help UN to expel Nazis from their countries (delimited by 1939 boundaries: their armies were totally forbidden to exit from their States!), so receiving "discounts" in future peace treaties. But they still defeated countries, not allies: never, in history, we saw a country imposing a peace treaty to their....ally, as it happened to these nations in 1947! Surely, in history, many States changed their allies during a war (e.g.: the Thirty Years War), but only after they signed full inter-war peace treaties. A cobelligerancy status is NOT an alliance status.
I hope I helped to give more order to this page.--Cusio (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you. With the exception of Finland, these countries changed regimes in 1943-45, and all these regimes declared war against the Axis and fought abroad. Take Romania as an example. In Return to Diversity: A Political History of East Central Europe Since World War II, Joseph Rotschild writes: "... an armistice was concluded with the Allied powers on September 12, 1944 ... On August 25, Romania had joined the Allies against Germany, and on September 7, it declared war on Hungary. Having fielded twenty-seven divisions and suffered 500,000 casualties (of whom 300,000 died) in Hitler's war against Russia ... and having then pulled off the most decisive volte-face of the war ... Romania was now to contribute another twenty-secen divisions and suffer a furhter 170,000 casualties (of whom 111,000 died) in the final Allied campaigns against Hitler." (p. 50) As for Bulgaria, their contribution to the Allied cause in 1944-45 was larger than their earlier contribution to the Axis cause, engaging 340,000 troops and losing 32,000 of them where they earlier had avoided participating in the main military campaigns of the Axis. Your claim that the former Axis powers did not fight outside of their own borders is incorrent: According to Wikipedia's sourced articles on these offensives, Romania participated in the Siege of Budapest, Bulgaria in the Belgrade Offensive. These countries did not join the UN and had to sign formal peace treaties with the allies after the war, true, but since this page uses a rather loose definition of the Allies (several of the countries listed never signed the UN declaration) they should be included, with a notification that their status was that of a co-belligerant and that they were former Axis powers. 96T (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC) [And one more thing, by the way: Only Italy and Hungary were "defeated" Axis powers, as you refer to in the header. Finland, Romania, and Bulgaria all switched sides before the Allies got to defeat them. 96T (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)]

I think it's unclear the domain of this page. Its title is not List of countries which declared war on Germany during WW2, its title is ALLIES of World War II: so, this page must include all countries which were ACCEPTED into the alliance whose official name was United Nations (and this acceptance must be referenced). Those listed countries which never signed the UN declaration must be deleted, if they were not founding members of UNO in 1945. Take the peace treaty with Finland (1947), as exemple, which begins as follow:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Czechoslovakia, India, New Zealand, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Union of South Africa, as the States which are at war with Finland and actively waged war against the European enemy states with substantial military forces, hereinafter referred to as "the Allied and Associated Powers", of the one part,

and Finland, of the other part; .....

I think this official source (and we can accept it as a big, big source) is very clear: USSR, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, etc are the ALLIED Powers; instead, Finland is the other part, it is in opposition against the Allied Powers. Peace treaties with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania are similar. --Cusio (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC) [ note: if a country surrenders, it is defeated ipso facto. It must not be occupied to be defeated (or can we say that Germany was not defeated after World War One??) ]

Your define the Allies as "the alliance whose official name was United Nations" (a name used from January 1942), but the definition used in the first sentence of this page is "the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War (1939-1945)" - a definition all the post-Axis states fall under. Their removal does not make sense unless the definition in the header is changed, and that is a pretty drastic change that needs discussion. So I'm readding them for now and if you want them gone (or moved to a different section), you should open a discussion on how to define "Allies" instead. 96T (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, wikipedia doesn't allow original researches. We can not invent a definition of the Allies, the Allies were an official group of States with a clear historical definition. The membership between the alliance was clearly definied, and we must accept it. Otherwise, discussions about unrecognized governments, governments-in-exile, defeated powers, colonies and resistences, can last years without solutions.--Cusio (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The definition we currently use is the same as Encyclopædia Britannia's. You claim that there is a clear definition, but countries that did not sign the United Nations declaration are still referred to as "Allies" by major historians and the term Allies is very widely used for the pre-UN alliance against Germany. What we should do in my opinion is reorganize this page completely, creating one section for countries that signed the UN declaration and one for other countries that were at war with one or more Axis power, and organize them into two handy tables, naming when each country declared war on or was attacked by what Axis power and other relevant information. 96T (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Umh... I think we have problmes with weblinks. When I open the page of EB you linked, I read:
In World War II the chief Allied Powers were Great Britain, France (except during the German occupation, 1940–44), the Soviet Union (after its entry in June 1941), the United States (after its entry on Dec. 8–11, 1941), and China. More generally the Allies included all the wartime members of the United Nations, the signatories to the Declaration of the United Nations. The original signers, of Jan. 1, 1942, were Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, Salvador, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, and Yugoslavia; subsequent wartime signers were the Philippines, Mexico, Ethiopia, Iraq, Free French, and Free Danes.
I don't read any statement about Italy or similar countries.--Cusio (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Someone added Mongolia and Tanu Tuva as members of the United Nations. I did not find any official act saying this. Can anybody find sources about?--79.24.166.165 (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a long-running disruptive editor who adds those countries - thanks a lot for spotting this and removing them. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D. I expect you to take your words on my disruptive behaviour back. During the discussion on this talk page I persented several reliable sources that confim both Tuva's and Mongolia's participation in WWII and their independetn status. With regards to Ukraine and Belorussia, no sources exist that confirm their independent declaration of a war on the Axis, and their participation in WWII as the Soviet Union's allies. According to the Soviet constitution, foreign policy was the central government's prerogative, so the Soviet republics simply had no right to declare a war. Anyway, I presented the sources (for some reason, they were removed from the main article, however they can be found on this talk page) that confitm Tuva's and Mongolia's participation in WWII as Soviet allies, so I sustained a burden of evidence. Please, provide reliable sources that confirm that Ukraine and Belorussia particiated in WWII as independent parties.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. I didn't add Mongolia and Tuva as members of the Uited Nations, I added them as the Sooviet Union's allies. I don't think this is not sufficient for being listed in this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Egypt

It was my understanding that, notwithstanding the presence of British forces in Egypt and the fact that fighting between German/Italian and British forces occurred on Egyptian soil, Egypt actually remained officially neutral until some time in 1945. What is the basis for the claim that it declared war in 1940? john k (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

After some googling, The Country Studies series says that Egypt remained formally neutral for most of the war, and only declared war on Germany in February 1945. This article seems to be clearly wrong. john k (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Even if formally independent, Egypt was de facto a puppet state of Britain until it became a republic. When the Italian troops entered on Egyptian soil, the King of Egypt still remained neutral. His goal? To maintain good relations with Italy and Germany, so claiming to maintain his throne even if the Axis would win the war. Only when the Axis defeat became clear, Egypt (as Turkey) officially entered in war with its troops.--95.245.130.162 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Former Axis states

The definition of 'allies' on this page is merely "the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War (1939–1945)," which clearly also includes Romania, Italy, Finland and Bulgaria, whenever they were allied or not. Either the definition should be changed, or these countries should be included. Yonaka (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We ought to have a section about the former axis powers who became co-belligerents. I believe there used to be one. john k (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't create history nor historical definitions. The Allies of WW2 were a clear and structured coalition of States, with an official membership and three leading Powers. If the official list of the Allies is in contrast with a wikipedia definition, we must change the wiki definition, not history. Italy was never an Allied power during WW2. After 1943 it was an occupied country, with some regions directly administred by the AMGOT and a central government generally subjected to the Allied Control Commission, an army disbanded for the 95% of its force, and a dramatic inflation caused by the Allied Military Currency. More, its state of war against the Allies was only suspended, not finished: this is the effect of all armistices in history, the state of war being officially closed by a peace treaty (of the debellatio -latin for full annexation- of the enemy). As many of you would know, Russia is still tecnically in a state of war with Japan, a peace treaty never being signed (and Sweden ended its state of war against San Marino in 2001 only, a simple armistice having been occurred between the two countries after the end of the 30 Years War in 1648).--79.54.154.62 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Post scriptum. Obviously, we can create a separate page speaking about the co-belligerents of the Allies.

Then the first sentance must be changed (I have no idea about how to make it sensible while excluding states contributing to the allied victory; "the Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War...well except some of them"). Yonaka (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I could suggest something like this: "The Allies of WW2 were one of the two diplomatic and military blocks of nations which fought the greatest conflict of the 20th century. They took the name of United Nations upon an idea of US President F.D. Roosevelt, and their legal link became the Declaration of 1942."--79.54.154.62 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Expert attention urgently required

Independent countries ONLY please.

As you all noticed by now, once people started inserting Free France organization, Alaska, governments in Exile etc. into the Alliance of INDEPENDENT countries, everything became so open to individual interpretation that now this important article, viewed by thousands of people every day, lost its quality and it is also confusing. I appeal to all editors and especially to the editors who refuse to take even one step back to reach compromise (yes, you Paul give me one example of "one step back" you took) to really start taking this issue seriously. We desperately need an agreement or an intervention of an expert before somebody inserts the Salvation Army to the list. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, governments in exile, the US's states or colonies should not be included as a rule. However, in some (limited) number of cases, concretely, when it is not clear if some Ally was a fully independent state (like Tuva), or when it it lacks some traits of state (Free French), exception should be made if omission of such an ally goes against common sense. I always presented my rationale for Tuva or Free French. Please argue concretely, without references to common criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Paul, but if we go head and make an exception to Free France for example, then what will stop other editors if they were to include Polish Secret State and start arguing that since Free France is there Polish Secret State, Yugoslav partisans and Armia Krajowa should be also included?? We have exactly this situation right now. Your idea is asking for trouble. It should be eather ONLY independent states and NO EXEPTIONS or "open the door and let everyone else in".--Jacurek (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a Slippery slope fallacy. After the Yugoslav government fell, the Yugoslav Partisans, which grew to a force of over 800,000 by the war's end, were definitely a significant combatant of World War II and contributed importantly to the Allied cause. In terms of the other territories or dominions, such as Alaska, Hawaii, and P.R., yes, these could be considered under the "U.S. umbrella." Though I believe it is important to remind people that, at the time, these were separate territories beyond the United States itself. Much as Newfoundland was not politically part of Canada at the time, and thus gets its own flag on the list. --Petercorless (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We already have the article Participants in World War II, I don't see Alaska or Hawaii listed there. To my mind an alliance needs some kind of formality in place like a treaty or something, and this article should be all those countries that had a formal alliance relationship, otherwise this article would be just a pointless content fork of Participants in World War II. The dispute seems to revolve around differing interpretations of what "Allies" mean for the purpose of this article. Once we sort that out, the rest should follow. --Martintg (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you correctly described a reason of the dispute. However, I am not sure it will be possible to give a single and simple interpretation of the term the "Ally". Primary Allies were Poland, Britain and France, and the only formal document they signed were French and British guaranties for Poland. However, de facto the Alliance was formed not as a result of signing of these guarentees, but as a result of the Anglo-Franco war declaration on Germany on Sept 3, 1939. Similarly, other countries became the Allies as a result of different and separate events, and any attempt to derive the membership criteria based on certain single fact or document will not work.
For instance, if we decided to consider the Ally only those countries that signed Atlantic charter, that would imply that no Allies existed before that.
The least controversial definition of the Ally would be "an independent state that declared a war on at least one of the Axis' member before Sept 1, 1945, and that fought in alliance with some Ally"
In connection to that, the term "independent" poses the most serious problem. You and -Jacurek interpret it as "fully independent and internationally recognized state", that is redundantly strict, in my opinion. "Fully independent" in your interpretation means that there is no sources that question that fact. However, formally speaking, even now some independent states (Canada, Australia) are not fully independent, because formally their head is a British Queen. I believe, I would be sufficient for the Ally to be considered independent if some reliable sources exist that tell about them as about independent states during WWII.
The term "internationally recognized" seems redundant. During WWII, when the international community was split onto two hostile camps it is hard to speak about international recognition. In addition, the criterion is vague. How many states have to recognize a certain state to consider it independent? One, two, three or many (and what does many mean)? Moreover, let me remind you that that country's declaration of independence and its international recognition are separated in time: a country may declare independence e.g. in 1932, and to establish diplomatic relations in 1937. Does it mean that such a country was not independent until 1937? I believe no. International recognition in 1937 just additionally post factum confirms independence declared in 1932.
Again, if some country declared a war on Axis and some sources exist that tell about it as about independent state, then it should be in the list.
With regards to Yugoslavian underground forces and Free France, situation is not so obvious. However, we have to agree that these movements served as a base for creation of new governments of liberated Yugoslavia and France, accordingly. That means they were internationally recognized post factum. They controlled a part of their countries' territory during WWII and fielded considerable armed forces. Although it would be incorrect to speak about them as fully independent states, to omit them would be equally incorrect. I believe that is a separate case that shuld be considered separately and that will not cause an avalanche of new "Allied colonies, protectorates etc" to be included into the article (per Slippery slope fallacy).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Purely to correct you as a matter of fact, the head of state of Canada is NOT the 'British Queen'. The head of State of Canada is the Queen of Canada, who admittedly happens to be the same person. However you will find that Canada, like Australia, has been fully independent for some time now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I count as an expert here, but I've done some research and editing on various nations in WWII, and I'm not part of any of the current disputes. It seems to me that there are two issues here: subordinate territories, and governments in exile.

I propose that countries that are not independent are not included. The key test here is whether the country in question got to declare war of its own accord, or did they come in because the parent declared war. This would exclude Alaska, for example, but include Canada. Most of these are uncontroversial; probably the ones most likely to be criticised for omission is India, but hard cases make bad law, and for better or worse India did not have the level of independence of Canada or Australia. The trouble with including non-independent countries is that there are just so many of them, once you've included all the British, French and Dutch colonies.

For the second case I would propose including governments that claimed to represent independent states. However I would temper this by treating governments in exile as part of the parent country if the parent country fought in the war before the exile. There is therefore no need to list Free French separately from French - we just say that the French were allies. de Gaulle would always claim he was the legitimate government of France anyway. We can add footnotes if we think it will help. Dutch, Polish etc all get treated like this. The only hard case here I see is Czechoslovakia; I would list it separately.

A very minor nit:

'In terms of the other territories or dominions, such as Alaska, Hawaii, and P.R., yes, these could be considered under the "U.S. umbrella." Though I believe it is important to remind people that, at the time, these were separate territories beyond the United States itself.'

Actually, Alaska was an incorporated territory of the United States during this era, meaning that it was an integral part of the United States, and persons born in Alaska were legally natural born citizens of the United States. Which I suppose makes the idea of including Alaska as one of the Allies even more ludicrous. Yaush (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you %100.--Jacurek (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Without any doubts, subordinate territories should not be included. However, the question is which territories are subordinate. Let's take Tuva as an example because we already spoke about it a lot. Some sources state it was dominated by the USSR and, therefore, was only formally independent. Other sources describe it as a territory that was not influenced neither by Russia nor by China (because Russian and Chinese versions of the Sino-Russian peace treaty two different mountain ranges were used as a border, and Tuva was in between these ranges), but that the USSR interference into Tuvinian domestic affair was significant. However, these sources draw parallelism between Soviet interference in Tuva and Czechoslovakia (an independent state). As a result, we have a half-full/half-empty glass question: should we consider these type states independent (because some sources state that) or subordinated (because some sources question that fact)?

With regards to France, the question is also a little bit more complex. By contrast to Poland (that never surrendered), France did surrender, and, therefore, ceased to be the Ally. We need to reflect a fact that, whereas a part of France (southern part of former Third Republic, part of its colonial empire and part of its fleet) became a pro-Axis state, another part (some colonies, some military forces, etc) continued to resist. How do you propose to reflect both these facts?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The case of the Free French forces can be explained in a footnote to France, there is no restriction on the length of the footnote. --Martintg (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. My only point was that sometimes it is much easier to set simple and clear rules than to observe them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Paul supports the argument that I have been making in the case of the Philippines (that it declared independence on 1898 and established a considerable degree of diplomatic relations during the course of the war). Anyway, India is listed because it is found listed in this source [7], which pretty much cements its (and the Philippines') place in the list. Britain could have said no in India signing the declaration but they didn't so because of that it should be listed. I would also like to make a case for Ethiopia (listed in the source as well) as a major ally since it was independent at the time (unambiguously) and since it was a war with Italy (a member of the Axis). Also China should be listed at the very top since it was a member of the Four Policemen and is at war with Japan even before the war formally began. I feel that the article wreaks of racism since only white nations and white colonies (Australia and New Zealand) are listed at the top. Besides the "Independent-only policy" exclusively denies any non-white colony from being listed in the article.--23prootie (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please tone down this "reeks racism" line, it only weakens your arguments, I guess the issue is whether this article is about formal allies, or should we also include co-belligerents too. --Martintg (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems in adding co-belligerents since it reflects the fluidity of alignment during the course of the war, and yeah sometimes I get too carried away.--23prootie (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a simple test for whether a country is independent: did it declare war separately? If so then it should be listed; if not, then not. I don't know the specifics of Tuva, but it should be a simple question to answer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this link provided earlier by Jacurek should give us some guidance. [8] Let’s reach a consensus in a civil atmosphere before we edit the page please.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

B class?

Can someone reassess the article for meeting B-class criteria? No outstanding citation requests remain... --illythr (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Declarations of war

I don't know exactly how to incorporate this information into the article, but the Declaration of War section should be retooled. The Axis powers were not a monolithic bloc, and very few countries did actually unilaterally declare war upon all of its members (whoever that may have been at any point in time). A large number of Allied countries declared war on some of its powers but not others, or just on the principal members (mainly Germany and Japan, and to a lesser extent Italy). To name but two examples, Great Britain was at war with Finland for the majority of hostilities, but the United States never was. After Pearl Harbor the United States also immediately declared war on the Axis' "Big Three", but only did so to its minor members (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, etc.) at a significantly later point in time, because it still hoped to see these countries withdraw their support for the Axis war effort, or at least return to a status of neutrality.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the United States did not declare war on italy and Germany; Italy and Germany declared war on the United States three days after the United States declared war on Japan. Which I suppose only goes to reinforce your point. Yaush (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Two principal members of these alliances, Japan and the USSR didn't declare war on each other until the very end of WWII: Japan because the Nomonhan 'lesson' was duly learned by it, and the USSR because its involvement in the East would distract it from the European theatre, which was considered by all Allies as more important.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek purged leftists from his party and fought against the Chinese Communist Party

• Did he "purge leftists from his party and fought against the Chinese Communist Party?"
• If yes, he was terribly clumsy.
• He may have purged "leftists" but not Communist secret agents in his government.Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Were Poland and SU Allies?

• Soviet partizans and agents fought Polish underground.
• Stalin accused the Polish government of collaborating with Nazi Germany and broke off diplomatic relations (in 1943).
• Red Army and NKVD imprisoned and/or killed Polish soldiers and civilians during and after Operation Tempest, including Augustów roundup in July 1945.

Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War (1939–1945).

The basic definition of the article is unprecize, it suggests that all Allies opposed the Axis 1939-1945, which is obviously false.Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say, "The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers at some point during the Second World War (1939–1945)." -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So Romania becomes an Ally.Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

'Soviet Union' section suggests that the SU invided Poland in 1939 as an Ally.Xx236 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Franco-Polish coalition

It is not completely correct to say that they were the original Allies for several reasons. Firstly, the Franco-British guarantees to Poland were strictly anti-German, so that was not a full scale alliance. Secondly, Anglo-French alliance ceased to exist after France had been defeated and surrendered. As a result, new allies never joined the Anglo-Franco-Polish coalition, but created an absolutely new alliance de novo.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That "only" you added there is redundant. "... in the event either was attacked by Nazi Germany" is unambiguous enough in determining the scope of the pact. --illythr (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

China was divided into the Nationalist Government of the Republic of China and Communist-controlled China during World War II

File:Mao and Chiang1945.jpg

Chiang Kai-shek (first row, second from left side), Mao Zedong (first row, third from left), United States ambassador Patrick J. Hurley (first row, first on left), 1945.

Mao Zedong (second from left in a dark uniform) and Communist Party of China (CPC) officials meeting with United States Ambassador to China, Patrick Hurley (at center - in bow tie), at CPC headquarters in Yan'an, 1945.

A user keeps retracting my edits, China was divided into two factions - Nationalist and Communist - due to the long Chinese Civil War. The Nationalists of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Communists of Mao Zedong reluctantly cooperated. US ambassador to China during the war, Patrick J. Hurley met with both Chiang and Mao, the US recognized both leaders as the the powers that be in China.--R-41 (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The allies are:United states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.112.194 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslavia - incorrect info

WP:SOAP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some important things were not mentioned here. One of the Axis had a complex situation and a wrong border presentation for the time during the war, as well as facts that they were actual Axis, not Allies. That is the Independent State of Croatia, settled between the Serbian border at Zemun, Drine river, and the Adriatic sea, as the largest one of the so called Yugoslavian countries. Yugoslavia never existed as a "Democratic Federation" after the war. It became Tito's Communist monarchy until the "Yugoslavia war" with Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia in early 1990's , when they decided to reclaim independence, after almost 50 years, which brought up the war crimes and terror by the Yugoslavia People's Army (Formed on Partisan forces under Tito's jurisdiction) in co-operation with local Serbian "Chetnik" paramilitary forces (based on the Chetnik forces, also formed back from WW2). Also, the Yugoslavia was not occupied by the German forces entirely, but mostly on Serbian teritory. The Independent State of Croatia, as one of the Axis,(quite important one, supporting Germany, and fighting even on eastern front, but inside the actual Yugoslavia) reclaimed their borders in 1941. as well as the independence of Yugoslavia, and gave military resistance to allied/communist forces of Yugoslavia and Chetniks. Broken, and occupied again after the war, Croatian territory entered Yugoslavia under suspicious conditions again. Today, mostly because of that, Croatia is categorized as an Ally, or Anti-Nazi country. It was a country on it's own, formed in year 925. with it's own king and crown (crowned at Tomislavgrad, Bosnia), after that as a part of the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy,but never connected to Serbia or any other Southern Slavenian country in political, native, nor geographic project, until the 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.237.106 (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Minor powers vs major powers

With all due respect to the military effort of Belgium and Netherlands, placing these countries among major powers is a gross exaggeration. If anything, they should be replaced by Poland, whose forces put together were the 4th largest allied army in Europe, larger than the French Army. Tymek (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

They were major powers, they had colonies and major economic resources. France was a major power in Europe. The Netherlands had a huge and economically valuable colony in Indonesia that was known as the Dutch East Indies. It was overrun by Japanese forces who targeted it because of its rich natural resources. Belgium had the Belgian Congo. The issue of Poland will require more evidence, such as the strength of its army in terms of technology, its economic resources, etc. If such evidence demonstrates that Poland was a serious contender in affecting European affairs or world affairs from its own actions, then it could be mentioned as a major power.--R-41 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How can Yugoslavia be considered at the same level as Mexico and Brazil, I am pretty sure that Yugoslavia had significant troop levels and impact on outcome of war, at least when compared to Mexico and Brazil. I do think Poland and Yugoslavia have been given the short end of the stick when it comes to World War II history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.114.81 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Political Map

Is there an existing (or would anyone be willing to create a) political map which is color coded to show the allies/axis powers? The Allies_of_World_War_I article has one that is featured prominently at the top, and this helps illustrate the article's purpose and content succinctly. 108.202.193.145 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That picture

The photograph captioned "British soldiers in Northwest Europe. 1944-1945." is shown the wrong way round.
For example, all berets are pulled down to the left. (The only army I know that do this is the French); the buttons on the soldiers 3rd and 4th from the left and on the extreme right fasten on the er... right; and finally the Bren Gun belonging to the 3rd soldier from the left is shown with the cocking handle on the left, (it should be on the right). There are others, but that should be enough examples.

I would change it myself, but lack the expertise. Short of deleting the picture entirely, does anyone know how to turn it round?

RASAM (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia - minor or major combatant?

I’m a little bit confused about the distinction between major and minor combatants. What are the criteria for this distinction? For example, I don’t see how was Yugoslavia classified as minor combatant? According to Basil Davidson quoted at Wikipedia's Yugoslav Front, Tito’s Partisans forced Axis powers to deploy 30 divisions in that country. During the war, the country lost 6-11% of 1939 population, and over 350,000 soldiers. --N Jordan (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have made the distinction on whether the combatant was a great power. However, that would mean that Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands should probably go under minor combatants. Which I'm actually okay with. --Yaush (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Major powers" in a WWII context customarily means either the "Big Three" or the "Big Five". I agree with Yaush that if it is interpreted thus, Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands should join the minors. However, if major is "significant combatant" above a certain arbitrary threshold, then Yugoslavia easily comes above B and NL and is close behind PO, as N Jordan points out. Regardless, the current status quo cannot stand. So what do people want, big five or major combatants above a threshold?
Some observations: - Greece could considered equal or above BE/NL. - Dominions are included under Britain, which includes New Zealand and South Africa that can be considered lesser combatants than BE/Nl. ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Big Five model is better, as it is preferable to follow established usage in the real world to defining an arbitrary cut-off line in a local wikiconsensus. I've also reorganised more chronologically, as it makes it easier both to read the article from start to end and to follow what happened to an individual country in relation to others in the war. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Allies of World War II

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Allies of World War II's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Yapou1":

• From Luxembourg in World War II: Yapou, Eliezer (1998). "Luxembourg: The Smallest Ally". Governments in Exile, 1939–1945. Jerusalem.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• From Belgian Resistance: Yapou, Elizer (1998). "4: Belgium: Disintegration and Resurrection". Governments in Exile, 1939–1945. Jerusalem.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• From Belgian Congo in World War II: Yapou, Eliezer (1998). "4: Belgium: Disintegration and Resurrection". Governments in Exile, 1939–1945. Jerusalem.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• From Belgium in World War II: Yapou, Eliezer (2006). "Belgium: Disintegration and Resurrection". Governments in Exile, 1939–1945. Jerusalem.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox

See Talk:Axis_powers#RfC:_Infobox for a consolidated discussion of whether this article should have an infobox. Srnec (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• YES the infobox is a part of every major Wikipedia article, and it is a useful tool, easily allowing a new reader to familiarize themselves with the subject matter of the article. So, this article should also have an info box. --E-960 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)