Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 4

message: I'm a chilean, i'm pretty confident, and i have some history books to confirm it, that Chile was a neutral country on WWII, and did not joined the allies. Any one who can confirmit and maybe give some links -i did't found them- so the entry can be corrected, would be much appreciated.
:I dont think they declared war on Germany, but they declared war on Japan oon April 11, 1945 according to  --Astrokey44 08:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chile 

message: Though many knowledgeable people know that Érie is the Irish name for Ireland, I would have to say that this is not common knowledge.  My name is Erin (though spelled differently), and I personally can't believe that so many people are unaware of the fact that Erin is also another name for Ireland, and granted, my viewpoint on this subject is biased, but I thought this was rather common knowledge as well.  Not to mention the fact that I've met other Erin's who don't even know what their name means, and plenty more people who are unaware that there is a not only a difference in spelling and gender "assignment," between Erin and Aaron, but also different origins and meanings.  So, I don't think it will take away from the article to change Érie to Ireland, and if there are people who have an issue with the change, there should be at least some kind of aside that indicates that Érie is Ireland.  I followed the Érie link, and found the following information:
"The name was given in Article 4 of the 1937 Irish constitution to the Irish state, created under the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, which was known between 1922 and 1937 as the Irish Free State. Article 4 stated that: "The name of the state is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."
So, even though the state was officially called Érie in Irish Gaelic, it was called Ireland in English, which is what this article is written in.  Afterall, Germany is not referred to as Deutschland in this article, nor Poland Polska, nor Italy Italia, and there are several more countries whose names are different from the English language equivalent.
:The problem is both geographical and historical. There are two different states within the island of Ireland and one was at war in 1939-45 and the other wasn't. Éire is used to denote the southern Irish state between 1937 and 1949, when the southern Irish state was still officially a member of the Commonwealth  and was not yet a republic. If we used "Ireland", it could be misunderstood as including Northern Ireland, which was at war in 1939-45. None of the names which have been given to the successive states in southern Ireland apply to 1939-45, except Éire. Grant65 (Talk) 00:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: Technically, Iceland was "occupied by the Allies in 1940" doesn't make any sense.  What Allies? France (neither Third Republic, Vichy, or Free French) ever occupied Iceland; Denmarck was out of the War very early, and I don't think it would be correct to say Denmarck ever "occupied" Iceland; the United States was not an "Ally" in 1940.  And the USSR was neither an Ally in 1940, nor ever occupied Iceland.
With a little study, what you may find is Great Britain was using ports in Iceland to patrol the North Atlantic, but after the Fall of France, "in their Finest Hour" when Britain stood alone, Britain relinquished ports & the U.S. took over patrolling the North Atlantic to facilitiate Lend Lease aid to Britain.  Hence, by October 1941 (two months before Pearl Harbor) the U.S. was at War with Germany based upon loss of life of US Armed Services by German U-boats.  
This little phrase needs a little study & clarity.  Thanks.  nobs 02:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iceland, too

message: Someone has just removed Newfoundland's flag. I can see why, it was effectively a crown colony under direct rule by Britain at the time. However, I think it is important to reflect the huge, voluntary contribution and sacrifices made by the people of Commonwealth countries under direct rule, notably British India, somewhere in the article. Grant65 (Talk) 00:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: British crown colonies

message: As I know, Greenland participated in WWII on Allies side with airdromes and some patrol forces even when Denmark capitulated.--Nixer 08:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Greenland was occupied by the US on April 9, 1941. (I also found this interesting article "Arctic Combat: The Capture of the German Naval Auxiliary Externsteine by the Coast Guard Icebreakers Eastwind & Southwind in Greenland, 1944". It seems the Kriegsmarine still managed to have covert weather stations on Greenland between 1942 and 1944.) Grant65 (Talk) 10:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Greenland was technically speaking a group of Danish colonies at the time. On 9 April 1940, Germany occupied Denmark and shortly after, the British occupied the Faroe Islands and Iceland and the Americans Greenland. The British later transferred control of Iceland to the Americans, at a time when the U.S. had still not joined the war. Denmark never had time to declare war on Germany on 9 April due to the rapid occupation of the poorly-armed country and officially both the Germans and Danish talked of a so-called "Peace occupation" (Danish: fredsbesættelse). It was a concept pretty much developed in the Danish foreign office in the late 1930s. Regarding Greenland, the Danish envoy (ambassador) to the United States, Henrik Kauffmann signed a treaty with the U.S. authorising the U.S. to defend Greenland and construct military stations there. In fact minor clashes took place in East Greenland late in the war (1944 I believe). Kauffmann was supported in this decision by the Danish diplomats in the United States and the local authorities in Greenland. Signing this treaty "in the name of the King" was a clear violation of his diplomatic powers but Kauffmann argued that he wouldn't receive orders from an occupied Copenhagen. In Denmark, he was tried with high treason in absentia and dismissed, a verdict he ignored. The Danish cabinet remained in office until 29 August 1943 when it officially handed its letter of resignation to King Christian X. Since he never officially accepted it, the government remained functioning de jure until the end of the war, but this is a technicality. In reality all day-to-day business had been handed over to the Permanent Secretaries, each effectively running his own ministry. The Germans ran the rest of the country. Following the Liberation of Denmark on 4-5 May 1945, the reconvened Parliament ratified the treaty signed by Kauffmann and annulled the sentence against him. He joined the Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio a few days later. I am afraid this story *is* pretty longhaired. Even as a Dane, I wouldn't know where to properly position Denmark in this table, so perhaps it is better to leave it all out? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I read from a Niels Bohr's biography, there was in fact declaration of war between Denmark and Germany and even some shooting (but much after the occupation itself).--Nixer 11:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to write a reply here when I realized it would get pretty long. I have copied this thread and posted the reply on Talk:Occupation_of_Denmark#Declaration_of_war_against_Germany.3F Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 13:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenland 

message: How many Allies of World War II were there? 44, as claimed in Bretton Woods system, or 45, as claimed in United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference? --Art Carlson 15:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of allies 

message: In spite of what I've said previously, I was unable to find any record of a separate declaration of war by India and whereas Newfoundland and Nepal appear to have had some degree of formal political independence, India had none. There is also plenty of evidence of indifference (or hostility) to the war with Germany by Indian nationalists. So I don't think including the flag of India (even if it is the British regime's flag), conveys the right impression.Grant65 | Talk 09:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of Indian nationalists, led by Gandhi, supported Britain - just because India was a colony of Britian at the time, should the fact that millions volunteered without pressure to fight for the Allies be discounted?  Indian soldiers won 30 Victoria crosses, and with or without an autonomous capability to decalre war, the lands of India, if not Allied, may have tipped the entire balance of power in asia.  I think India deserves honorary mention, and an explination of this situation should be provided, lest this contribution be forgotton.  Vastu 00:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree with Matt. India's contibution was bigger than that of other Commonwealth countries, but the article is primarily about international political alliances. There is too much detail about India's effort in the article at present. I will move the bulk of it to Participants in World War II. Grant65 | Talk 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: India/Commonwealth

message: "The group of countries known as the Allies of World War II came together as World War II unfolded and progressed."
It doesn't really give a definition of the allies, seeing as it is the first sentence. Should we change this? ~The Red Baron
:How would you propose to define them? Grant65 | Talk 06:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit long, but it gives a more accurate definition. And yes, some parts of it has to be cut off. ~The Red Baron
How about we take the intro from the Axis powers and change it to reflect the Allied powers.
Axis intro paragraph:
  The Axis Powers were those nations opposed to the Allies during the Second World War. 
  The three major Axis Powers, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, referred 
  to themselves as the "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis". At their zenith, the Axis Powers ruled 
  empires that dominated large parts of Europe, Asia and the Pacific Ocean, but the Second 
  World War ended with their total defeat. Like the Allies, membership of the Axis was fluid, 
  and some nations entered and later left the Axis during the course of the war.
I'm going to take the Axis' first sentence and apply it here. Anyone willing to under take making more of this? Thmars10 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Allies 

message: According to the article Second East Turkestan Republic, the Second East Turkestan Republic was independent from China at this time, but on the map it is a part of China.--Fox Mccloud 17:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second East Turkestan Republic 

message: The original allies were the states that declared war on Nazi Germany in September of 1939, thus starting World War II.
I laughed out loud when I read this. My mind went straight to  Basil Fawlty: "You started it... You invaded Poland!".
I understand the logic of the statement: the Nazis marched into Poland on 1st September 1939 and it became immediately obvious that nothing was going to stop them taking over. At that point, we might have had "the Nazi invasion of Poland" but we didn't yet have WWII. Had France and Britain ho-hummed, it's conceivable that WWII might not have happened (well, not that month anyway). So, strictly speaking the original line is correct - the war only began "officially" when France and Britain declared it so two days later. 
However, if you pretend you are a Martian and know nothing of WWII, on reading the above quote, you'd get the impression that there was dear old, peace-loving Nazi Germany, minding its own business, when along came these nasty Allies and started a war on its ass!
It is an interesting case of a perfectly factual sentence conveying completely the wrong impression. I'm not certain how best to fix it (without ponderously loading it with subordinate clauses), however I think the weakness is in the word "starting". How about re-casting it thus:
The original allies were the states that declared war on Nazi Germany following the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 --Oscar Bravo 15:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who started it? 

message: Were Nepal and Bhutan neutral? This article says that Nepal declared war in 1939, but this 'faq' says that Nepal was neutral. They're wrong about Paraguay though so Im not sure how reliable it is --Astrokey44 08:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepal Bhutan 

message: A Romanian I knew claimed that they had fought on the Allied side before being invaded, and so it was only for political reasons that they were counted among the losers of the war.  It appears this must be true for some Romanians, at least.  The article says parts were annexed by USSR while still allied with Germany, so their defense at that stage was fighting on the Allied side.  Then, when Germany attacked USSR, the Romanians in the parts occupied by USSR became on the Allied side again.  At least it seems they didn't willingly attack anyone without provocation.  David R. Ingham 01:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The USSR was not allied with Germany.--Nixer 08:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romania 

message: On consideration, I think that these should be removed from the list of Allies. Denmark is the prime example (see Occupation of Denmark). There was clearly continuity of the pre-war Danish government and the govt of occupied Denmark. It seems like a harsh judgement on the Danes who did fight in other Allied forces, and the 16 or so who died in 1940, but I believe it is historically accurate. 
By contrast, the governments of the other members of the Oslo Group either went into exile or were dissolved -- Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
See also Romania during World War II. The Romanian state did not actually declare war against the Axis side until 1944, which is when we have it joining the Allies. That is only correct way to handle such cases I think. Grant65 | Talk 03:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Danes find the situation confusing as well. The cabinet did of course resign on 29 August 1943 after a series of strikes on Jutland / Funen, but this only proves that popular opinion was against the German presence (which it had been all along, only the situation was nearing a point of no return.) However, I can find no documentation for a German declaration of war, and I know for sure that Denmark did not declare war on Germany. Unfortunately, I can't find the actual text of the German ultimatum of 28 August. I noticed that one Danish internet page claimed that a German proclamation of 29 August announced that both King and government had been deposed, but I'd like to see more documentation for this one since the Germans took no action was against either, so one second-class source for a statement like this is not good enough. Furthermore, Danish books don't mention an actual state of war, only - pretty much - that the government collapsed. The British had their strong doubts as well. When Montgomery crossed the Danish border, he brought with him a British military government to be installed in Denmark. This story only became widely known a few years ago since Montgomery apparently must have changed his mind. The military government was never installed. Danes normally say that the only reason Denmark was (ultimately) considered to be an allied nation (or close to) was because of the activities of the Resistance. The very enthusiastic welcome given to the British troops probably was probably also influential. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I visited Copenhagen (in 1992) and remember seeing, in a museum, statistics on the Danes who fought with other Allied forces. But then there are the SS volunteers, the absence of a government in exile, etc. Would anyone object if we remove Denmark from the main list, and have a short, separate paragraph briefly explaining it's unusual situation, in the "Oslo Group" section, with a link to the Occupation of Denmark article? Grant65 | Talk 08:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like the Museum of Danish Resistance :) It is quite correct that Danes fought on both sides of the war. The volunteers fighting for Germany claimed after the war that the cabinet had sanctioned German recruitment in Denmark (and my own POV on this one is that they were right in this interpretation.) The government also repeatedly made announcements condemning sabotage actions. However, I would also like to stress that Danish sailors served (and died) on British ships during the war and that the number of people involved here and in the resistance movement is higher than the similar number on the German side. Furthermore, the Danish public was generally opposed to the German precense in Denmark - e.g. the Frikorps Danmark volunteers were pretty disappointed by the less-than-friendly welcome they received when returning to Denmark on leave in 1942 (43?). But it is also true that the Allies didn't have a positive view of Denmark before the wave of strikes in 1943. In legal terms, your conclusion is all too correct, and I'll support your suggestion. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Here's to Anders Lassen and the others. Grant65 | Talk 15:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Btw, I have investigated the German recruitment business in Denmark further prompted by some comments on Talk:Axis Powers. Again, I discovered that the truth was more complex than it seemed at first. I already knew that the Danish government had been twisting its hands when faced with the Anti-Commintern Pact business, but I had never noticed the finer details in this decision, nor that the government expressly avoided to sanction the creation of Frikorps Danmark as such, expressly wording its proclamation to only deal with the fact that Kryssing was taking command of a unit. It might seem like splitting hairs, but when I read the Danish text, it does look like the cabinet was trying to weigh its words carefully. Well, I normally don't deal with WWII material, so I'll have to use this as an excuse for my previous lack of knowledge about the fouding of this corps. You might find my post there interesting (unfortunately, it became rather long). Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: States that did not declare war after being attacked by Axis forces