Jump to content

Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Allied Order, I admit my mistake.

I am now well aware I have acted wrong in my decisions over the past few days on this page. I have below listed a document by the Allies listing the desired and therefore correct order of nations. A JOINT DECLARATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, CHINA, AUSTRALIA, BELGIUM, CANADA, COSTA RICA, CUBA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, HONDURAS, INDIA, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PANAMA, POLAND, SOUTH AFRICA, YUGOSLAVIA 

The Governments signatory hereto,
Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Great Britain dated August 14, 1941, known as the Atlantic Charter,
Being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands, and that they are now engaged in a common struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world,
DECLARE:
(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government is at war.
(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.
The foregoing declaration may be adhered to by other nations which are, or which may be, rendering material assistance and contributions in the struggle for victory over Hitlerism.[12]

I wish to adapt this on to the article order and if there are any problems then it can be changed. --Warner REBORN (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Warner REBORN: Well, go ahead and apply it. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: It is done, feel free to inspect. I do have another proposal about joining New Zealend with Australia and Canada closer in the order under the "British Commonwealth" --Warner REBORN (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Warner REBORN: This documents is "Declaration by United Nations".If you do some research,you will know only US, UK, Soviet Union and China have the priority for order in this document because they were defined as "Big Four" in Declaration by United Nations and maybe Four Policemen. The order of other countries like AUSTRALIA and BELGIUM are all based on the Alphabet order. For example, Australia is A leading so its rank is 5 and Belgium is B leading so its rank is 6. This is also the reason why Cuba (C leading) did little contribution for the war but its rank is higher than Netherlands and Greece. This means using this order is similar to use the Alphabet order. There is another document Charter of the United Nations which more countries sigend.Can you wait comment from other users before you do some edition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.242.249 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2015‎ (UTC)

None of these changes proposed for the Infobox by Warner REBORN were agreed upon. Please do not change the article page. I for one, have reservations about this proposition, joining the UN is a separate issue from the military alliance (allies which participated in actual combat), and is a secondary item in the overall history of the alliance. --E-960 (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with E-960. This seems an arbitrary ordering, which I suspect hasn't been used more generally by historians. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nick-D:I do now totally agree with you and admit my mistake. But even as said by yourself, the Big Three / Four are always ordered as either UK / Soviet / USA or USA / UK / Soviet. It's how they are ordered in the articles so should be reflected in the infobox. Thankyou though for correcting my mistake on the UN document. --Warner REBORN (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't at all think that's how they're always ordered. Anyway, we've discussed the ordering about a bazillion times and I doubt that there's much enthusiasm for revisiting the topic. There are lots of things with the various articles which are much higher priorities for improving IMO Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of recently added "Albania" as an "Allied" state

I really do not see a single fact why Albania can be considered as part of the Allies during WWII. It never fought as a state on the Allied side. On the contrary it fought together with the Axis being in personal union with Axis Italy. As for the Albanian resistance, which was very limited compared to most European states, according to the same rationale we can add Germany too, due to the fact that some kind of anti-Nazi limited movement existed there too.

I also note that the correspondent section is poorly sourced (Pearson is a far from being considered wp:rs). On the other hand, J. Fisher, Albanian Identities: Myth and History (p. 135-140) one of the more credible historians on the subject states the following:

The Italian invasion by some 22,000 troops supported by air force and naval units, was poorly planned, poorly executed and succeeded only because ther was so little resistance. As Count Ciano's chief assistant Filippo Anfuso stated: "if only the Albanians had possessed a well-armed fire brigade, they could have driven us into the Adriatic".

The Germans could spare only about one third of the troops Italy had found it necessary to station in Albania ca. 36,000 mostly garisonned troops many of whom had been prisoners of war before enlisting to the German army. The Germans were not altogether unsuccessful. They were able to hold the strategic points in Albania with a small number of troops, a number which steadily declined throughout the course of 1944. The German army was able to withdraw, essentially unmolested with only moderate losses (2,400 with another 1,000 unaccounted for) over the period of the entire occupation.

One of the keys to explaining Germany's relative success was its policy of seducing and then corrupting all of the non-communist elements of resistance, including Balli Kombetar, the Zogists, and many other independent chieftains. They all collaborated outright - with some joining the puppet governments, or at least failed to actively resist the Germans.

To sum up, the formation of a limited resistance movement doesn't classify the specific country as an "Allied" one.Alexikoua (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting fact is that Albania had never formed a government in exile [[1]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In effect, I have reverted the move. Albania was alone and only recognised as "associated power" for the treaty with Italy to be able to claim a minor compensation. Mostly due to partisan activity. The Banner talk 21:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The comment of Alexikoua is a POV synthesis of the source, as the source itself does not state that Albania was not an Ally. On the contrary, the historian Bernd Fischer mentions the Albanian resistance to Axis forces in his book "Albania at war, 1939-1945" [1]. The problem with the current list is that the term "Associated Power" is not a different categorization of WW2 actors, but just a synonym of the atomic/indivisable term "Allies and Associated Powers". Indeed, Google returns 0 findings of such a term (https://www.google.de/search?q=associated+powers&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=IyP-VL_ZCYvsO6vIgfgH#q=associated+powers+of+WW2&start=10). Ironically the only location where a categorization of a WW2 country as "Associated Power" is this Wiki article! In that perspective I see no reason why Albania is expelled from the list of Allies and put into a fictitious categorization titled "Associated Power". It needs to be added to the list of Allies since it is listed as a Minor Combatant Nations in this very article. 95.90.207.195 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Lupino? FkpCascais (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Seeing that there is an agreement about Albania I've move it in the "associated powers".Alexikoua (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
There was no agreement! The users Alexikoua, FkpCascais, The Banner have been previously edit warring on the thesis that Albania was an Axis state, not an Associated Power or Ally. The previous thread of discussions among several other Wiki users yield no consensus on their side. Starting over with their anti-Albania thesis is quantifiable for persistent POV pushing. The existing text before the recent arbitrary changes of Alexikoua was a consensus among many pro- and against- users on the Albanian case, therefore should be rolled back to its neutral state. 95.90.207.220 (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
True, you did not agree with it and then you got blocked indefinately for disruptive editing. The Banner talk 11:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

massive removal of sourced content and change of country status?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allies_of_World_War_II&diff=651032975&oldid=651030121

Why??? It seems the issue has been infected by nationalistic tones as editors who constantly oppose Albanian positions are edit warring (editors from countries like Greece and Serbia, globally known for anti-Albanian historical hypotheses).

At this point the "good faith" principle seems to be violated and the article is (partly) a mirror of POV synthesis. Experienced editors with no apparent conflict of interest, and no anti-Albanian editing history, should take the matter in their hands. 95.90.207.90 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the ongoing issue of Albania should rest on the fact that the current article is primarily devoted to "combatant states"; in other words… nations which officially sent combat troops to support the alliance (many of the nations which were part of the alliance only rendered diplomatic and economic support, but did not participate in combat). In case of Albania (puppet state of Italy), you had a resistance movement and that's why Albania received special status as "associate power" in 1946, but was not actually part of the "Alliance". --E-960 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
E-960 Following your line of arguments: If a resistance movement is not a reason for Alliance membership, then Yugoslavia, which also had a resistance movement, should be excluded from the list of Allies. Similarly the Greek government went on exile during WW2 and the fighting against Axis was guided by a resistance movement. Apparently, both Yugoslavia and Greece are listed as Allied countries. Following that the "resistance only" argument does not hold, I find the exclusion of Albania ungrounded. In addition, the "Associated Power" category was fabricated during the discussions of this talk page, only the the umbrella term "Allies and Associated Powers" exists in WW2-related sources. The creation of the separate category "Associated Powers" was a synthesis of few Wiki users, in order to exclude Albania from the list of Allies. You are kindly invited to see that the term "Associated Powers of WW2" results in 1 Google results, only in this article :) In contrast, the term "Allies and Associated Powers" is a generalist term used to refer to countries opposing Axis and was used "atomically" during the treaties ending WW2 (for instance: Paris Treaty with Italy, 1947). Otherwise, attempts to create a separate list containing only one country creates a ridiculous situation where [ IF "Associated Powers = {Albania}" THEN "Allies and Associated Powers" = "Allies and Albania"], which wasn't the meaning of that definition.
That being said, the other issue is: The user who moved Albania deleted a massive amount of related and sourced content on the Albanian resistance, which was aggregated as a collective effort of different Wiki users. How would one explain this vandalism? Sourced content cannot be removed arbitrarily and should be immediately rolled backwards. 95.90.207.220 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is not a place for personal attacks (vandalism?). Your arguments have been already refuted per above section, also note that Fisher clearly places Albania on the Axis side during the time of WWII.Alexikoua (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
How else would you qualify the arbitrary removal of sourced content? Why did you do that? 95.90.207.220 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@95.90.207.220 The term "Associate Power" was used for Albania in the 1946 peace conference, please look at the article section about Albania and the source to back it up. It's not a "phrase" created by Wiki users who contributed to this article. --E-960 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@E-960 To the best of my understanding the words "Allies", "Allies and Associated Powers" and "Associated Powers" are interchangeable synonyms with respect to the focus of WW2. I can logically prove that: The peace conference was held between "Allied and Associated Powers" and "Italy" in 1946. Albania was not initially part of it and was added later to the conference (1946) through amendments. The question is, before Albania was included in the treaty which countries were the Associated Powers (the term existed before the inclusion of Albania)? If that definition is separable and not interchangeable there should have been countries listed separately as "Allies" and "Associated Powers", but there is no such classifications (I challenge anyone to find such a distinctive categorization of WW2 actors). The story here is that some Wiki users took the term "Associated Power" from the Albanian amendment proposal at the conference and used it as an "rather fallacious" alibi to claim: "Allies and Associated Powers are different words, therefore they are different categories, and as a conclusion Albania is not an Ally".
I propose two actions: 1) Albania should be moved back to the Allies list as per the aforementioned reason, 2) The vandalized text of the section Albania (unexplained/arbitrary removal of sourced content on WW2 anti-Axis fighting) be restored. 95.90.207.220 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
No, Lupino, we are not doing that. Instead, I will file a sockpuppet investigation due to block evasion. The Banner talk 11:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not see how those personal attacks are related to the ongoing discussion in this talk page. As a consequence I am simply ignoring your comment. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
As promised: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LupinoJacky. And Mr.IP147: ignoring unwanted arguments is almost your trademark. The Banner talk 12:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, your remark about personal attacks is quite funny, looking at the personal attacks towards several editors that you placed on WP:SPI. But the nicest thing is that with that rant you plain confirm that it is you again, LupinoJacky. Thanks for that. The Banner talk 16:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I will ignore the personal comments (it is not worth responding to repetitive and meaningless accusations). However, I have the right to focus on the topic and demand explanations why was the text of the section Albania removed together with all the sources therein. The massive unexplained/arbitrary removal of sourced content from the section Albania is against the Wiki guidelines. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't care at all Lupino. Ignoring other peoples arguments is what you did the whole time, so it is not different now. The Banner talk 20:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC - Albania

There is no point in continuing a RfC started by a block evader as part of evading their block Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute on the status of Albania as an Ally. The debate has stalemated since the sides seem to not agree even on basics.

The dynamics of Albania during WW2 can be briefed as follows (extracted from a previous version of this article co-edited by various editors):
Albania was recognized as an "Associated Power" at the 1946 Paris conference [2] and officially signed the treaty ending WWII between the "Allied and Associated Powers" and Italy in Paris, on February 10, 1947.[3] [4].
From the 1939 Italian invasion to 1943 it was occupied and controlled by Italy while from 1943 till 1944 it was under German control which created a puppet government. The British sent agents to Albania to coordinate the attacks of the National Liberation Movement (LANC) on the Axis forces located in the region.[5][6] Over the course of the war, the casualties of the Italian and German armed forces, in the fight against the Albanian resistance, were 26,595 killed, 21,245 wounded and 20,800 prisoners. [7].
However there are editors which OPPOSE adding Albania to the list according to diverse claims as follows:
Claim 1. Albania was an Axis state, therefore not an Ally.
Claim 2. Albania was an Associated Power according to the 1946 peace treaty with Italy, therefore not an Ally.
Claim 3. Albania had a resistance movement against Axis and not did not fight through the official army, therefore not an Ally.
The response to those claims is:
General response: Albania was invaded by Italy in 1939, even though it militarily opposed the invasion. After the invasion the legitimate government moved to exile and was forcefully replaced by a puppet government of Italy. Albania actively fought against the Axis during the Albanian Liberation War through a resistance movement, such a contribution is well documented (see also above). It is documented that Albania suffered high war casualties in percentage of soldiers and civilians during the war against Axis. In the end of the war Albania was officially recognized as an Ally during the peace treaty with Italy (which officially ended WW2) and received war reparations.
Response to Claim 1. Albania was invaded and occupied by Axis, where a puppet government was created. The puppet government was not internationally recognized and did not militarily engage in fighting against Allies. In addition, other countries had pro-Axis puppet governments like France, Greece, Yugoslavia, etc ... Therefore, having a pro-Axis puppet government is not a reason for being excluded from the Allies list.
Response to Claim 2. Associated Power is a synonym term for "Allies" or "Allies and Associated Powers". There is no division between the status of Allies and Associated Powers in the treaties ending WW2. This categorization does not exist and is a synthesis conducted in this article.
Response to Claim 3. Greece and Yugoslavia also had resistance movement and their fight against Axis was conducted by the resistance, not the official governments. Since those countries are listed as Allies, Albania should be listed as well.

A personal comment: Unfortunately, I fear the discussion has also a political connotation, because the "official" history version of countries neighboring Albania, namely as Greece and Serbia, advocates Albania as Axis state. In the case of Greece, the Albania-Axis relation hypothesis was used as an alibi for ethnically cleansing Albanians in northern Greece Expulsion of Cham Albanians. While in the case of Serbia the Albania-Axis hypothesis is used to fuel the theory that during WW2 Kosovo was invaded by Albanians to create a Greater Albania. Even though there are abundant sources testifying the fighting that Albanians conducted against Axis, yet the Greek and Serbian historians (whose numbers over-scale Albanian historians) have managed to shadow the Albanian contribution against Axis. A mirroring of this politically heated historical diversion is reflected in this article as well (where again there are predominantly more Greek/Serbian editors than Albanian ones). 95.90.207.208 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Lupino, please provide at least one secondary source saying Albania was allied because your talk without sources is useless. Just to prove that you are totally distorting facts, you are comparing Albania with Greece and Yugoslavia, two countries that declared war to Axis countries, while Albania didn't declared war to any Axis country and worste, declared war to several Allied countries. Second, you say that Italian invasion of Albania found military opposition. Really? Please source that claim. Because in the articles we have several sources saying there was little or no resistance to Italians. Third, associated power is not the same as Allied. Please I will repeat, find secondary sources saying Albania (country) was allied. And fourth and last, stop crying out loud how you are victim of Greek-Serbian conspiracy and blabla, because we provided sources, while you provided none, you want to make changes in the article based on your phantasies, and sorry, that is not possible here on en.wikipedia. FkpCascais (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
point 1) Albania resisted against the Italian invasion Italian invasion of Albania,
point 2) source 1: Axelrod, John. Encylopedia of World War II. Volume 1. H W Fowler. ISBN 978-1-84511-308-7., page 823-824, citing:

The first peace treaty concluded between the Allies and a former Axis nation was with Italy. It was signed in Paris on February 10 , by representatives from Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, Iraq, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zeeland, Pakistan, Poland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, Yugoslavia and Italy.

point 2) source 2, "A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2013", USA State Department, which confirms that Albania was one of the Allied countries that signed the 1947 peace treaty between Allies and Italy, page 453-454, online link http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/218912.pdf 95.90.207.208 (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
point 3) There is no separate differentiation of "Allies" and "Associated Powers" within the context of WW2 treaties, nor any statutory difference among such terms. Truth be told, such a categorization of countries was never made during/after WW2, it was a synthesis of this talk page. Terms "Allies", "Allies and Associated Power", "Associated Power" refer to Allied countries opposing Axis. 95.90.207.208 (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Fischer, Bernd Jürgen (1999). Albania at war, 1939-1945 (illustrated ed.). C. Hurst & Co. p. 201. ISBN 978-1-85065-531-2.
  2. ^ United States Department of State, Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. Paris Peace Conference : documents (1946), page 802, Article 26.a) 'Memoranda submitted by Albanian Government on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy' "proposed amendment...For the purposes of this Treaty, Albania shall be considered as an Associated Power.", web http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs/1946v04/reference/frus.frus1946v04.i0011.pdf
  3. ^ Treaties in Force, A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2013", Page 453, accessible online from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/218912.pdf
  4. ^ Axelrod, John (5 February 2015). Encylopedia of World War II. Vol. Volume 1. H W Fowler. p. 824. ISBN 978-1-84511-308-7. The first peace treaty concluded between the Allies and a former Axis nation was with Italy . It was signed in Paris on February 10 , by representatives from Albania , Australia .... {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  5. ^ The OSS in World War II Albania: Covert Operations and Collaboration with Communist Partisans [page needed]
  6. ^ Manelli, Gani. "Partisan Politics in World War II Albania: The Struggle for Power, 1939-1944." East European Quarterly 40.3 (2006): 333.
  7. ^ Pearson, Owen (2006). Albania in Occupation and War: From Fascism to Communism 1940-1945. I.B.Tauris. p. 418. ISBN 1-84511-104-4

Completely useless RFC set up by a block evading IP who ignores the fact that the prior discussion was not a stalemate but a clear consensus that Albania was NOT an allied power. Beside that, it is another case of trying to steam roll things to get a completely twisted version (and not backed up by sources) in Wikipedia. The whole RFC is 100% POV. The Banner talk 20:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Put simply, there was no universally recognised Albanian state that could be either an Ally or a member of the Axis during World War II. We cannot deal with Albania as an abstract legal entity whose continued existence throughout the period was universally recognised. We have to have a what, and just what was Albania is disputed. There was King Zog in exile, a Fascist puppet government, resistance movements, but there was no state or government that was signatory to the Declaration by United Nations or to any alliance treaty at all. Yugoslavia and Greece are called Allies because they had actual governments in exile and, in fact, troops fighting in exile. They had signed formal alliances and adhered to the Declaration by United Nations. The Yugoslav resistance was, in fact, legally recognised as acting on behalf of the gov't-in-exile, both the Chetniks and, eventually, the Partisans; there were even contacts. Srnec (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Your claim "..., but there was no state or government that was signatory to the Declaration by United Nations or to any alliance treaty at all" is not correct, Albania signed the Peace Treaty ending WW2 with Italy in 1947 as an Allied country (see references above). In addition the government in exile of King Zog supported the anti-Axis resistance through the Legality Movement. And overall Albania provided a significant fighting against Axis (had 26595 war casualties fighting Axis (out of a small population of ca. 1 million), which is 2.7% of the population. It had more war casualties than many of the "major allies" USA, UK, France, etc ... ). Such a fighting contribution cannot be hidden under the carpet using technical justifications for excluding Albania. For all those reasons, and the ones previously described, I vote in favor of mentioning Albania's contributions as an Ally. 95.90.207.176 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No, Lupino, they did not and you know that. Only for the purpose of the treaty with Italy they were recognized as an "associated power". The associated powers were clearly not the same as allied powers but you prefer to ignore the evidence to support your POV pro-Albania-claim. With all the blahblah you did over the last month or so, you still fail to provide proof of your claim. Unfortunately, I could deliver proof that Albania was not an allied power. So drop the stick and stop dragging that dead horse. The Banner talk 10:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

4th largest Allied army in Europe

according to Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II: "The Polish forces as a whole are considered to have been the 4th largest Allied army in Europe, after the Soviet Union, United States and Britain." How does it make Poland a >>minor<< affiliated state combatants?

it takes some fancy counting, hidden assumptions and the avoidance of actual numbers: Add together the Poles controlled by USSR & Britain, & add an exaggerated count of resistance fighters. The "Polish Army" under Polish control was much smaller. Rjensen (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
These kind of numbers often pop up concerning the contributions of the non-major combatants in World War II. For instance, Australian publications often boast that the Royal Australian Air Force was the fourth-largest air force in the world at the end of World War II (for instance, on the RAAF's website here). This is possibly true, but ignores the obvious fact that it only reached this status by default after the much larger air forces of Germany and Japan (and Italy?) had been destroyed. The same principle seems to be in action here, but is even more questionable when you consider that the French Army was quite large by the end of the war, though little of it had entered combat. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Flag

all i wanna say is fix Canada's flag, thats a provincial one not our maple leaf with bars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.46.170 (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What is used is that official flag for the period 1921-1957. The Second World War falls in that period. The Banner talk 16:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@184.70.46.170 The Maple leaf was introduced in 1965. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

POV/NPOV

For some unclear reason Jomlini is tagging the article as POV but without explaining why. Could you please explain why? The Banner talk 09:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you know that at the start of the World War 2 the size of the United States army was close the size of Belgium armed forces? Banner I think you know exactly what I'm saying, don't be so stubborn. I think it is just absurd that the US is the first in the list even without a proper reason (Calidum etc have not told me though I have asked). Seriously you might not care at all because maybe you are not so interested in history? But seriously, if you'd, you would be as confused as me. I can't simply understand that why English Wikipedia is like this, I have learned this in primary school that USA didn't have the biggest role in WW2, not even close. You can read this in Wikipedia or by asking your local history professors maybe?

Here some straight statistics for you to read: Number of divisions available for these countries over the course of the war 

        1939 1941 1943 1945

USSR: 194, 200, 350, 488 USA: 8, 24, 95, 94 Compare these two really precisely, can you see the huge difference? Germany: 78, 235, 327, 319 UK: 9, 35, 39 , 31 USA: 8, 24, 95, 94 And these statistics include the whole WW2, not just "European front". This is how big the army of USA was over the whole course of the war. http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/

Do you see how incredibely small was the army of the United States compared to USSR? Please Hammer, don't say that you don't get my point after this.

Now let's see the military death count per country. USSR 12 million Germany 3.25 million USA 407,000 UK 403,000 Do you see?

The size of the US army in its peak 1945 (8,267,958) was only 26% of the army of Soviet Union. (http://www.nationalww2museum.org) After this "lecture" do you still think that the US should be first in this list? Seriously Banner this is just absurd that I have to explain you why. Is this wiki so US centrist that you still think that the USA had the biggest role in ww2? Sorry if my English is hard to understand, I'm studying besides English four other languages, Finnish (native), Swedish, Russian and German. Jomlini (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

That you have to default to baseless claims of "US centrism" shows how weak your argument is. The U.S. should be first because it fought in both theaters of the war; the soviets didn't until the war's end. It's as simple as that. Calidum T|C 16:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What? The Soviet Union fought with over 1 million soliders in Pacific theatre like you said, in the end of the war. But also did US. When the Normandy landings started the Germany was really weak and the end of war was just matter of time. So US and USSR both fought in the both theatres of the war and with the same force (the US force was 10% of USSR comparing to Invasion of Manchuria and the D-day though), in the end of the war. So there, I just declined your poor argument. Jomlini (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact what you give are poor arguments. What is the relevance of the size of an army towards its importance? The Australian Army was not that big but they did in combat (Siege of Tobruk!!) was far more important than their numbers. The Banner talk 19:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You just seriously don't want to understand.. Yes Australia was great, but we are now talking about overall impact in the whole WW2 situation. Finland fought even better than Australia etc, in Winter War and Continuation War but the overall impact to the WW2 was nothing. And I'm a Finnish guy and I can admit it, because I want to protect the wikipedia from unneutral text. Or do you think that Finland should be the first in the Axis list because they were great in a so small scale? The things like Australia did in the WW2 were great but talking from the modern point of view like the Siege of Tobruk made the war end littlebit faster. You probably understand that after the losses of Germany in Eastern Front (!) 1941-1943, it was totally impossible for Germany to counter attack anymore becuase the used pretty much of their most important resources in the Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Kursk, Battle of Moscow etc. After the loss of Battle of Stalingrad, our axis president Mannerheim said that it is sure that Germany will lose and eventually Allies will win Axis. As I said after that it was just matter of time when Nazi-Germany will break. Without some allies countries it would have taken a longer time but the main point is here that clearly the Soviet Union had without a doubt the most biggest battles with Germany what had a huge impact on the resources of Germany to continue the war. Do you now understand why it is important that the Soviet Union had a huge army? You can actually now read about Battle of Stalingrad here and I'm sure that you can read a sentence where reads that it was a huge turning point in WW2. The Banner, I understand that you are from Netherlands and you might feel anger towards Russia etc. But you can't change history, I is always better to be neutral in Wikipedia, it is the truth. I'm littlebit amazed that after all this you still think that I need to exlpain you more. In nutshell, the Soviet Union did the "job" in Europe and other Countries like USA helped to end the war more quickly. Like after Germany surrended, the people in Europe were pretty much waiting when USA does the final strike to end the war. Japan was never capable of invasing Europe, especially after the Battle of Stalingrad when Wehrmacht got a lot weaker. If you really think from the bottom of your heart that US was really the most important factor in WW2 could you tell me why? In my university if I would say that the USA had the biggest role in WW2, everyone would call me a little child who thinks that the D-Day was the biggest battle in WW2. Een gek kan meer vragen dan tien/honderd wijzen kunnen beantwoorden. Jomlini (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you please keep your personal remarks for your own? Getting personal only devalues your own arguments. The Banner talk 06:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Korea

I've just semi-protected the article to stop the edit war by two or more IP editors over the status of Korea. If they would like to discuss this issue, here would be a good place. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

In early days, Korean Liberation Army Received support by China. But, later, in 1944, the Liberation Army took over the operational control from Republic of China and followed its own independence course. (http://www.doopedia.co.kr/doopedia/master/master.do?_method=view&MAS_IDX=101013000828152) User:JARA7979 (User talk:JARA7979) 06:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Korea was never recognized as a independent country by other allies before the end of the war. It was even not the signatory of the Charter of the United Nations and did not attended the UN Conference on International Organization. Actually, India, which was controlled by the United Kingdom, was one of the signatory. Then South Korea was established in 1948 and North Korea was established in 1946. Neither was established before the end of the war. Then Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea was located in China from 1919 to 1948 (during the whole war and two years after the war). The Korean army was largely reliant on the Chinese forces. Then Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea was really a client of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.200.8 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Two more months of protection to stop edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 22:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Split country names in infobox

Some of the country names (such as France and Poland) in the infobox are two links (e.g. in 'France' the 'Fr' links to one page, and 'ance' links to another). This seems very strange but I'm not expert enough to decide which of the two links is more useful, or how best to split them up. Anyone? -Taras (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the split link. While I understand the intent of doing it like that, it shouldn't be done per WP:EGG. In each case I kept the first linked article and removed the second, because the first one in each instance was about a government in exile, while I felt was more appropriate than resistance movements. Calidum 03:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for remove "Minor" from "Minor affiliated state combatants"

I just changed the name of this section to remove the 'minor', and was reverted by User:Rjensen. Without getting into nationalist-type stuff, 'minor' seems unnecessary, especially as it implies some kind of judgement on the size/contribution of the countries which simply doesn't need to be included. It's also somewhat factually incorrect given that several of the "minor" countries took the lead or provided very substantial forces in major combat theatres (eg, Poland in the Polish campaign, Canada in the North Atlantic convoys, and Australia in the South-West Pacific during 1942-44). What do others think? Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

we have major and minor players. The minor ones were all auxiliary to a major player and not independent players. None were invited to summit conferences. Size is not in doubt here either. Poland was never a major player in 1939. Canada followed UK-us lede --""In practice the RCN did what the Admiralty asked" http://books.google.com/books?id=pDFFeppU93MC&pg=PA174 " . Australian military = under MacArthur's control. Rjensen (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
France wasn't major according to your definition, it wasn't invited to summit conferences.Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen:@Xx236: I think France should be removed from "major". It wasn't invited to any summit conferences and was an exile government from 1940 to 1944. The United States and the U.S.S.R even recognized the Vichy France as the legal government instead of Free France until 1944.

Poland

The section describes the situation in 1943, the lacking period should be added.Xx236 (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Poland (Gomułka regime)

It was Stalin regime and the role of Gomułka isn't so obvious. There existed several people supported by Stalin - Bierut (the puppet presiden), Berman, the puppet PM was Osóbka-Morawski.Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've just semi-protected this article for an indefinite period. As can be seen from reviewing its history the article is attracting a significant number of edits from IP accounts, with almost all being unconstructive and rapidly reverted. The article has been repeatedly semi-protected in the past, but it seems clear that this is a permanent issue. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

War justification

I've found this sentence a bit odd, since it assumes one has to provide a justification after being attacked:

  • General Secretary Joseph Stalin and the government of the Soviet Union justified the Soviet war effort that resulted from the German invasion of the Soviet Union with Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, as a defensive war being fought by patriotic Soviet people for their survival.[19]

Does this sound odd to anyone else? Should it be rephrased? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it seems distinctly odd. What do you think it is trying to say? Perhaps a start would be "characterized" rather than "justified", so it still seems rather obvious. --Yaush (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I will address. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2016

98.230.209.118 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, guys...

Nigeria was a British colony at WW2... --Funny Gardaland (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It is also using wikipedia as a source for wikipedia. Which is problematic to say the least. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Request edit on 26 July 2016

Add the Triple Entente (please fix this article too?) to the date box like the Axis powers page, (if you please)?

— 2601:183:4000:D57A:8912:6E2:FE76:318C (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, the Triple Entente has only relevance to the First World War. The Banner talk 16:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
While the article says that they entered WW 2 as the Allies... So — 2601:183:4000:D57A:5DD3:AFC4:8FD9:7A2D (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
You mean At the start of World War I in 1914, all three Triple Entente members entered it as Allies against the Central Powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary? There is no mention of the Triple Entente in Allies of World War II or World War 2. The quote above is about WW1. The Banner talk 18:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
What I mean is like the aforementioned Axis powers as in their date box where it takes you back to the Triple Alliance, so where is the triple Entente than? — 2601:183:4000:D57A:7959:1F49:8CC6:7AE9 (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
With all respect, but Axis powers has no "date box" (I guess you mean the infobox) nor is there any mention of the word "triple" in the whole article. Are you mixing up the Tripartite Pact with the Triple Entente? That are different things altogether. The Banner talk 21:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I meant the infobox and yes I meant the Triple Entente so why isn't it added with all due respect... — 2601:183:4000:D57A:7C23:8033:B983:D7AB (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I am at an absolute loss what you want. The Banner talk 23:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Following sections need to be added for missing Allies

Nation sates:

Resistance fighters:

Protectorates / colonies:

Also why aren't the client states showing in the article?

AHC300 (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Negative--we do not want to overload the article with trivia that obscures the information readers are searching for. there were lots of Allies -- ie members of UN. the article wisely covers the combatants not all the others. The protectorates & colonies had no voice in the matter and are shown in the map & do not need listings. Rjensen (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The article does not wisely cover all combatants during the war. The sovereign Kingdom of Nepal sent a legion of troops to fight for the British. The Ethiopian Empire fought against the Italians since 1936, via a guerrilla war, (various parts of Ethiopia remained under the control of Ethiopians during the Italian occupation) meaning it fought against the Axis longer than any other nation ever. There are a bunch of other combatants nations in my list there but I'm not listing them all. So your "claim" that all combatants are in the article is clearly false. I agree we can do without the colonies, but ignoring significant nation states and resistance movements that fought in world war 2 is wrong. AHC300 (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen. Regarding the resistance movements listed above, the German military anti-Nazi resistance movement was in no way aligned with the Allies (quite the opposite, in fact as they wrongly believed that it would be possible in 1944 to make peace with the western Allies while continuing to fight the USSR) and many of the other examples noted had rather complex geopolitical stances. I am not aware of reliable sources which describes individual resistance movements as being members of the World War 2 alliance. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Dependency

change ((dependency|dependent states)) to ((Dependent territory|dependent states)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:54c6:ef78:1f86:88d6 (talk)

Done Pppery (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

they made call of duty off ww2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.14.104 (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

socking

Be advised, LelouchEdward was a sock of Miracle dream. Both have edited this article before so interested parties should be aware. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

order of appearance

ussr should be the first in the list of the countries under the map, cause it made the main contribution to the war and won all the main battles of the war and had the largest losses while the united states made far fewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Change "Indian Army" to "British Indian Army" (Bangladesh and Pakistan's soldiers weren't enjoying a nice vacation when India took arms)

Also Indian soldiers didn't earned 30 Victoria Crosses during the Second World War. It's the overall number for all wars. WW2 got them 17. 11 recipients were Bangladeshi and Pakistani. There was no India alone. It was British India. (Means India, Bangladesh and Pakistan).

It's not nice to steal everything. The very little glory these other countries got from British Raj was "nothing." India already took everything.

This should be the line: British Indian Army earned 17 Victoria Crosses during World War II. Need a fix asap!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Victoria_Cross_recipients — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.179.151.17 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Addition of Dominion of Newfoundland

The Dominion of Newfoundland was a dominion who joined in with the British during WW2. Their status of domain offers them limited autonomy. Where should they be put (or should they be put in the first place?) in the article? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Newfoundland had voluntarily given up its Dominion status in the 1930s and was a crown colony during the war like many others---it had no autonomy at the time and should not be included in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Newfoundland gave up its self-government in the 1930s, not its dominion status. That happened only in 1949. The Banner talk 17:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
look at the RS: 1) Newfoundland "chose to give up responsible government and its dominion status in 1934 and once more became a crown colony" says Ryan D. Griffiths (2016). Age of Secession. Cambridge UP. p. 94. 2) " Giving up of dominion status was until such time as the island becomes self-supporting" says Crossroads Country: Memories of Pre-confederation Newfoundland by Malcolm MacLeod - 1999. 3) "On 16 February 1934, Premier Alderdice signed the papers that surrendered Newfoundland's dominion status " says Sean Thomas Cadigan. Newfoundland and Labrador: A History (2009) p 208. Rjensen (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have more sources? Your source is at odds with this source, that is used in the article Dominion of Newfoundland. 21:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
'The Oxford Companion to World War II states that Newfoundland was not self-governing at the time of the war, and allocates it only a paragraph instead of the lengthy entry which all the independent countries involved in the war receive (aside from those who declared war but never participated seriously, which obviously wasn't the case for Newfoundland). Please see page 616. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The Canadian War Museum also says that Newfoundland wasn't self-governing at the time [2], with the result that it automatically entered the conflict upon the UK's declaration of war (something the heritage.nf.ca article also states, along with noting that Newfoundland didn't have responsible government at the time). As such, I agree that Newfoundland should be excluded. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Sock of banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

British Empire

All the non-white colonies of the British Empire were automatically committed by the King's declaration of war on 3 September 1939. (Lsnkd (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

@Lsnkd: Please cite a wp:reliable source - see wp:Verifiability Jim1138 (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Only the Dominions had independence in foreign policy. Churchill maintained that Ireland was committed by the King's declaration of war, as the 1937 constitution did not say whether the state was a republic or not. (Lsnkd (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC))

Historic incorrectness

"Czechoslovakia along with the United Kingdom and France attempted to resolve German irredentist claims to the Sudetenland region in 1938 with the Munich Agreement, however in March 1939,..."

This is not true. Czechoslovakia was betrayed by its allies and the Sudetenland was given to Adolf Hiltler. Czechoslovakia was not part of the Munich Agreement. They talked without inviting representatives of Czechoslovakia. Please, can someone edit this, because it is offensive to people of todays Czech Republic and Slovak Republic.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.143.113.134 (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

started in 1789-1790 50.155.74.97 (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

68.101.90.10 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)




bruh

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Pppery 22:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Polish contribution to the second world war

Hi, I am disgused by possitioning Poland in the group of "Minor affiliated state combatants". The place of Poland is in " Major affiliated state combatants", especially if France is there.

I am not writing just because I am Polish. This thesis is confirmed by numbers and facts. First of all it is even written in the article that we are talking about

"The invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, started the war in Europe, and the United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany on 3 September. Poland fielded the third biggest army[49] among the European Allies, after the Soviet Union and United Kingdom, but before France."

and in other articles from wikipedia

"The Polish forces as a whole are considered to have been the 4th largest Allied army in Europe, after the Soviet Union, United States and Britain." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II#endnote_anone

secondly Poland never cooperated with Germany like Vichy.

Moreover polish troops had a big influance for War in decisive moments such as battle of Great Britain (Polish air forces), battle of Monte Casino, Polish intelligence's successes (like breaking the Enigma's code) etc.. plus the biggest resistance in whole Europe.

Also Poland was the first country that stood up to Germany.

That is why I don't understand the order of this article. Please change it, cause I guess I can't as it is semi protected article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusi91 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd personally do away with this arbitrary distinction, or at least use a different title, but do note that Poland is in the same category as countries such as Australia and Canada, which were also involved in the war for its duration (longer than Poland actually given that they took part in the fighting in the Pacific) and fielded much larger forces from October 1939 onwards. 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Actually it is not true. Of course in October 1939 Polish forces were smaller but don't forget that they started to reorganize and by the end of war they amounted 210 thousands in the west, 440 in the east, 400 members of Home Army, National Armed Forces 65, Peasant's Battalions 160, The People's Army 30... together 1 305 000, much more than 730 thousands of Australians or even 1,1 milion of Canadians. You can not forget about Polish resistance or troops in East.

Also uncorrect is the claim that Australians or Canadians were involved longer. Poland started war at September 1939, Australia and Canada maybe took part in defense of France (I dnon't know, I guess they started since the Battle of England) so started war the earliest in may 1940 - 8 months later. War with Japan finished 4 months later so they fought 4 months less. We could also say that Polish resistance continued fight after the soviets started the occupation of Poland after beating Nazis but lets leave this in this discussion.

Summing up I think that this division is highly unfair and if France is in " Major affiliated state combatants", Poland should be there as well, otherwise this article lies the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusi91 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dusi91:, I think it is better to remove France from the major list but it may lead to another dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.113.199 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Order of Appearance in the infobox

Why are these countries not in the order in which they entered the war? Or perhaps start with the country that had the most troops in WWII and end with the country that had the least? -- Kndimov (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I changed this list to alphabetical. I'd say that it is the easiest and one of the less volatile options. Thoughts? Jlr3001 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see the prior discussions in the archives of this page. The Banner talk 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Uhm, there was no consensus at all. And having the US first is, frankly, nonsense. I'm changing it to alphabetical. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Please don't change it without a consensus to do so. The current order has been established for many years, so changing it to alphabetical is quite unwarranted. Calidum 03:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Any follow up to this? Because having the US first is a load of rubbish. Qaei ☎ 21:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you have some reason for your opinion other than "it's rubbish" ? DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Big Three

In the sentence in the lead beginning 'The leaders of the "Big Three"...', please link "Big Three" to Grand Alliance (World War II). --95.44.50.222 (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Colors

The choice of color on he map is extremely poor. Dark green and light green to designate opposite powers?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.45.131.27 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No. Axis powers are in blue. Dark green are Allied early, light green are allied late arrivals. --— Erik Jr. 21:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Allies of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Norway

The section Norway did not discuss the essential: Norway was neutral and did not formally become an ally until later. The military agreement of 1941 I guess made Norway an ally of the UK. Please keep this paragraph, the section is misleading and incomplete without.--— Erik Jr. 19:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

True. Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, and Belgium weren't part of the 'allies', they were first neutral, then they were occupied by Nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II/Archive_9&oldid=1164849391"