Talk:Alliance

message: Why isn't Canada listed as a major ally in World War I or World War II? It did train the British RAF and fight at Ypres when French forces retreated... Also, they captured Juno Beach and liberated the Netherlands. I think a listing in Commonwealth is not sufficient.
Canada is listed collectively with the other dominions of the British Empire in WWI because important aspects of foreign policy (such as declarations of war) were still directed from London, unlike when the Second World War broke out; the First World War pre-dated the establishment of separate crowns for each dominion (with the Statute of Westminster 1931). The scale of Canada's contribution in WWI is not the issue, but rather the question of whether Canada was acting independently in the war, or as part of the British Empire. 
In 1939, Canada chose to declare war independently, and so should be considered separately from the UK as an Allied Power, but nevertheless Canada was not a great power at that time, being on a different level from powers such as France, the USA, Japan, Germany, the USSR, and the UK. 142.167.104.106 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada? 

message: I moved Japan from major to minor allies, as WWI is mostly a european war.
By the way, Japan wasn't at the Versailles peace conference. yes that is right and the allies are very important
But, the Japanese had no historic claim to any European territory. They were awarded some of Germany's overseas territories.
When Japan was submitted by the American forces after the attacks on Tokio and other of its cities it became a allie to the US.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.250.167.100 (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan a minor or major ally? 

message: I changed the following less lucky wording, calling the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact a peace agreement. In reality it was presented as a non-aggression treaty, though the content of the secret amendment made Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union practically to allies in their common assault on Poland, Balticum and Finland. 
* Soviet Union (from 22 June 1941 - before that a peace agreement was signed and adopted with the Axis)
--Ruhrjung 18:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molotov-Ribbentrop pact no peace treaty 

message: It's always controversial about which members of the British Commonwealth are added to this list. For a long time now we've kept only the Dominions, i.e. those that declared war independently (Australia, Canada, New Zeland, South Africa). Nobody wants to deny that India played a large part in the war, but the question then becomes "where do we stop?". Should we list each one of the British Colonies separately? There are lots of them. What about the French colonies? I'd prefer to see us list only the four Dominions. What do other people think? DJ Clayworth 19:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: India was a dominion in 1939. The British declaration of war did not automatically bring India into the fighting. However, the Viceroy declared war on behalf of India without consulting other members of the Indian Government. David Newton 14:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: India

message: As far as I know, Italy switched sides and joined the Allies in 1943, just before it was invaded by Nazi Germany.
:Actually just before it was invaded by the Allies, but otherwise yes. DJ Clayworth 16:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Italy

message: :::Ok then, let's simply fill up this table and insert it to where it belongs :) Halibutt 22:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
The World War II Allies 
Entry into war    	State         	Approximate personnel involved                	Remarks                                                                                                                                                  											
                  	              	                                              	                                                                                                                                                         											
September 1, 1939 	Poland        	About two million (both fronts and resistance)	Occupied by Germany by 5 October 1939, never surrendered, contributed significant forces to Allies until the end of the war.                             											
September 3, 1939 	France        	~2,800,000 until capitualtion.                	Capitulated to Germany on June 22, 1940                                                                                                                  											
September 3, 1939 	United Kingdom	                                              	                                                                                                                                                         											
September 3, 1939 	Australia     	About one million personnel.                  	Total number who served in all services, during 1939-45.                                                                                                 											
September 3, 1939 	New Zealand   	                                              	                                                                                                                                                         											
September 6, 1939 	South Africa  	                                              	                                                                                                                                                         											
September 10, 1939	Canada        	                                              	                                                                                                                                                         											
April 9, 1940     	Denmark       	~ 0                                           	invaded by Germany, previously neutral                                                                                                                   											
April 9, 1940     	Norway        	~ 6 divisions                                 	invaded by Germany, previously neutral                                                                                                                   											
May 10, 1940      	Belgium       	                                              	invaded by Germany, previously neutral                                                                                                                   											
May 10, 1940      	Netherlands   	                                              	invaded by Germany, previously neutral                                                                                                                   											
May 10, 1940      	Luxembourg    	                                              	invaded by Germany, previously neutral                                                                                                                   											
June 18, 1940     	Free France   	                                              	French opposition to the government loyal to the Germans                                                                                                 											
October 28, 1940  	Greece        	                                              	Invaded by Italy, independence guaranteed by the United Kingdom                                                                                          											
April 6, 1941     	Yugoslavia    	                                              	Invaded by Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria                                                                                                 											
June 22, 1941     	Soviet Union  	                                              	Initially allied to Nazi Germany, invaded by it on June 21, 1941 and invited to the Allies the following day                                             											
December 8, 1941  	United States 	                                              	Initially a supporter of the Allies, joined the war after being attacked by Japan                                                                        											
December 9, 1941  	China         	1937 Kuomintang ~1,700,000                    	At war with Japan since 1937                                                                                                                             											
1942              	Czechoslovakia	                                              	Seized by Germany on September 29, 1938 as part of the Munich Agreement; Government in exile created in 1941, recognized by the Allies the following year											
                  	'        	                                              	                                                                                                                                                         											
BTW, I suggest we added the actual (or at least approximate) number of troops rather than number of divisions. The reason is that there was a plethora of different tactical units named divisions in various armies of the time. They differed largely in both numbers (any number between 4.000 and 30.000 could fit) and equipment. Halibutt 23:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
: I agree, and there are the navies and air forces to be considered.Grant65 (Talk) 00:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
It's been brought to my attention I may have accidently deleted part of the discussion for which I humbly appologize.  Will be more careful next time.  No harm intended.  Thank you.  Nobs 00:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of Allies

message: Halibutt: we are not really limiting it.  We are gaining the overall perspective.  We begin with the Big 3, Great Britain, U.S.S.R., and United States.  Each member of the big three has sub-alliances, some sub-alliance members are allied outside their sub-alliance, some not.  Britian rightly can be regarded as the founder of the alliance, hence we'll place them first:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
allied to the Commonwealth 
* British Raj (India)
* Australia
* New Zealand
* Union of South Africa
* Canada (September 10)
* allied to the Atlantic Charter (The Atlantic Conference : Resolution of September 24, 1941)
**London exiles
(alphabetically as in external link--yes I know USSR was not a London exile, neither did it live up to the terms of this agreement)
*** Belgium 
*** Czechoslovak_Government-in-Exile see also here
*** Greece 
*** Luxembourg
*** Netherlands government in exile
*** Norway 
*** London Poles, also known as Polish Home Army 
*** USSR (Wartime developments)
*** Yugoslavia 
*** French National Committee 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
*Allied to the Soviet Union COMINTERN'''
** Chinese Communist Party  (regime title) People's Liberation Army (force name) (from 1923)
** Polish People's Army (Armia Ludowa) (from 1943) see Sikorski-Mayski_Agreement
** People's Liberation Army, Partisans (Yugoslavia)
** National Liberation Front (in Greek Ethniko Apeleftherotiko Metopo, or EAM), which was founded in September 1941. EAM and its military wing, the Greek National Liberation Army (Ethnikos Laikos Apeleftherotikos Stratos or ELAS), were established by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) (source:Greek_Civil_War#Background:_1941-44)
United States 
*allied to the Pan American Union (21 members)
*Havana Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics, July 21-30,1940
** Brazil
** Mexico (some forces in Pacific)
** Chile
** Uruguay
** Venezuela
** Argentina |ARGENTINA'S MESSAGE TO THE PAN AMERICAN UNION ON ITS DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST JAPAN AND GERMANY
* China (Kuomingtang) 1,700,000 (1937) see Sino-Japanese_War_%281937-1945%29#Stalemate_and_foreign_aid and Joseph_Stilwell for background on confusing Two China Policy
===Comments===
Remember, we need to match regime names with force names, and not confuse the two.  Both France and Poland from 1939-41 were not allied to USSR or US; neither regime alliance Free French (force name) or Polish Home Army (force name) became a successor-state that joined the UNO (yes, it is true, the Free French were reintegrated with Vichy civil service to form the new Fourth Republic, the legitimate successor of Vichy).  Also, we have not begun to discuss Finland.  My only recommendation is not to rely of geographic names when we are discussing political regimes and their military forces.
: What is the point of the distinction between the supposed Commonwealth, US and Soviet groups? It creates the impression that they were totally separate, when they were not. Firstly, Britain was/is an equal member of the Commonwealth with the so-called Dominions, such as Australia, Canada, etc, which declared war separately and ultimately controlled their own forces. Britain had ceased to have any say in the politics of the dominions. Secondly, in 1942, the individual Commonwealth govts (including Britain) put their forces under the operational control of the Combined Chiefs of Staff. In other words they were under the day to day control of a new, joint US-British body. Grant65 (Talk) 01:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
:The above diagram gives a good picture as to how the alliance took shape.  The Triple Entente alliance which Britain and France had been members of upto 1940 ceased to be triple when Imperial Russia dropped out in 1917.  Any Franco-Soviet collective security agreements were nullified by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.  So basically, forget trying to date the Alliance that survived the War and formed the UNO from 1939.  It cannot be done.  The alliance that met at Potsdam (and all other summits) was the alliance of the Big 3; each of the big three can be regarded as the head of its own separate system of alliances, which ultimately were fused together (or at least in theory attempted) in the United Nations Organization.  Great Britain headed the Commonwealth of Nations.  The United States headed the Pan American Union (also called Pan American League, to distinguish it from those members who participated in the war from those that remained neutral); the Soviet Union headed both the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, itself an alliance of 13 member states, and the Comintern, or Communist Intrernational.  Some junior members of the these alliances were at war with one another, China Kuomintang & the CCP, Polish Home Army and Polish People's Army, to name two of the most conspicuous.  In these unresolved alliances we have the roots both of the Cold War and Korean War and Two China Policy. Nobs 01:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these alliances came into being on their own.  The members were not wondering around in the dark and stumbled upon each other and coincidentally decided simultaneously to join together.  Each head, Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union, provided the leadership necessary to form together.  It began with an idea, than an invitation to a meeting, then an agreement to sit down and hear discussion, then coaxing, convincing and cojoling the junior partners of the necessity for such an alliance.  In this sense, the Big 3 (term has its origin among newspaper headline writters as being able to communicate an idea in the least amount of space, like FDR, JFK, LBJ, Ike etc) can be rightly considered the "leaders" of the alliances (all notions to equality, except among Comintern, accepted).  To carry the discussion further, the North Atlantic Alliance, another subdivsion of the Alliance of the Big 3, was an alliance of the Commonwealth and Pan American League, as cheifly represented by the US & Britain; it forged alliance with the "Soviet bloc", Comintern, or Communist International, to fight fascsim and the Axis Powers, hence the Big 3. Nobs 16:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: There are so many things wrong with the above that I hardly know where to begin. For one, the "Big Three" did not come into being until 1942 (or later), after the tide of the war had turned. China had been fighting since 1937. Second, this schema invents political control where none existed (as in the case of the Commonwealth) and overlooks the very real military/operational commands which did exist, such as the Combined Chiefs of Staff. You could make a case for Stalin having both, when it came to communist forces, but even then Mao and Tito did pretty much what the pleased. Third, the Commonwealth barely existed as a institution, so it couldn't have been a mechanism for British political or operational control of Dominion forces, which were attached to Britsh commands in 1939-42, and only as long as the Dominion governments gave permission. (See, for example, Australia's decision to recall three Australian divisions from North Africa, to serve in the South West Pacific, against the wishes of Churchill and British commanders.) After 1942, the Dominion governments put their forces under combined Allied commands and, ultimately, under the Combined Chiefs of Staff. To give the Big 3 such importance is fictious.Grant65 (Talk) 00:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, all very valid criticism.  Let's return to original premise: does the term "Allies" refer to political regimes or military forces.  What perhaps needs to be done first is collect all regime names in a list, then divide between Axis & Ally; then attach force names to each regime name, for example United States is a political regime, its fighting force is United States Armed Forces, etc. Nobs 01:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

text: See relevent document published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1952 gives good context for understanding how the old alliance system failed and lesson learned for forging the new alliance system. Nobs01 21:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Big 3]] or [[World War II Grand Alliance]]

message: Remember, we need to match regime names with force names, and not confuse the two.  Both France and Poland from 1939-41 were not allied to USSR or US; neither regime alliance Free French (force name) or Polish Home Army (force name) became a successor-state that joined the UNO (yes, it is true, the Free French were reintegrated with Vichy civil service to form the new Fourth Republic, the legitimate successor of Vichy).  Also, we have not begun to discuss Finland.  My only recommendation is not to rely of geographic names when we are discussing political regimes and their military forces.
: What is the point of the distinction between the supposed Commonwealth, US and Soviet groups? It creates the impression that they were totally separate, when they were not. Firstly, Britain was/is an equal member of the Commonwealth with the so-called Dominions, such as Australia, Canada, etc, which declared war separately and ultimately controlled their own forces. Britain had ceased to have any say in the politics of the dominions. Secondly, in 1942, the individual Commonwealth govts (including Britain) put their forces under the operational control of the Combined Chiefs of Staff. In other words they were under the day to day control of a new, joint US-British body. Grant65 (Talk) 01:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
:The above diagram gives a good picture as to how the alliance took shape.  The Triple Entente alliance which Britain and France had been members of upto 1940 ceased to be triple when Imperial Russia dropped out in 1917.  Any Franco-Soviet collective security agreements were nullified by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.  So basically, forget trying to date the Alliance that survived the War and formed the UNO from 1939.  It cannot be done.  The alliance that met at Potsdam (and all other summits) was the alliance of the Big 3; each of the big three can be regarded as the head of its own separate system of alliances, which ultimately were fused together (or at least in theory attempted) in the United Nations Organization.  Great Britain headed the Commonwealth of Nations.  The United States headed the Pan American Union (also called Pan American League, to distinguish it from those members who participated in the war from those that remained neutral); the Soviet Union headed both the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, itself an alliance of 13 member states, and the Comintern, or Communist Intrernational.  Some junior members of the these alliances were at war with one another, China Kuomintang & the CCP, Polish Home Army and Polish People's Army, to name two of the most conspicuous.  In these unresolved alliances we have the roots both of the Cold War and Korean War and Two China Policy. Nobs 01:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these alliances came into being on their own.  The members were not wondering around in the dark and stumbled upon each other and coincidentally decided simultaneously to join together.  Each head, Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union, provided the leadership necessary to form together.  It began with an idea, than an invitation to a meeting, then an agreement to sit down and hear discussion, then coaxing, convincing and cojoling the junior partners of the necessity for such an alliance.  In this sense, the Big 3 (term has its origin among newspaper headline writters as being able to communicate an idea in the least amount of space, like FDR, JFK, LBJ, Ike etc) can be rightly considered the "leaders" of the alliances (all notions to equality, except among Comintern, accepted).  To carry the discussion further, the North Atlantic Alliance, another subdivsion of the Alliance of the Big 3, was an alliance of the Commonwealth and Pan American League, as cheifly represented by the US & Britain; it forged alliance with the "Soviet bloc", Comintern, or Communist International, to fight fascsim and the Axis Powers, hence the Big 3. Nobs 16:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: There are so many things wrong with the above that I hardly know where to begin. For one, the "Big Three" did not come into being until 1942 (or later), after the tide of the war had turned. China had been fighting since 1937. Second, this schema invents political control where none existed (as in the case of the Commonwealth) and overlooks the very real military/operational commands which did exist, such as the Combined Chiefs of Staff. You could make a case for Stalin having both, when it came to communist forces, but even then Mao and Tito did pretty much what the pleased. Third, the Commonwealth barely existed as a institution, so it couldn't have been a mechanism for British political or operational control of Dominion forces, which were attached to Britsh commands in 1939-42, and only as long as the Dominion governments gave permission. (See, for example, Australia's decision to recall three Australian divisions from North Africa, to serve in the South West Pacific, against the wishes of Churchill and British commanders.) After 1942, the Dominion governments put their forces under combined Allied commands and, ultimately, under the Combined Chiefs of Staff. To give the Big 3 such importance is fictious.Grant65 (Talk) 00:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, all very valid criticism.  Let's return to original premise: does the term "Allies" refer to political regimes or military forces.  What perhaps needs to be done first is collect all regime names in a list, then divide between Axis & Ally; then attach force names to each regime name, for example United States is a political regime, its fighting force is United States Armed Forces, etc. Nobs 01:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

text: See relevent document published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1952 gives good context for understanding how the old alliance system failed and lesson learned for forging the new alliance system. Nobs01 21:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Halibutt: You're right. But London Poles is a common journalistic phrase from the time also used in internal government communications.  When researching CIA archives or Studies in Intelligence it is most common.  Also, recall the "London Poles" did not go out of existence in 1945, as this document from 1961 illustrates .  As a common search term, it appears this term works very well.  Nobs 17:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I beleive the London Poles, and many other London exiles regimes all fought on three fronts after 1940, in Africa, Italy and Normandy (perhaps elsewhere too).  This is significant relevent information.  Nobs 17:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Poles 

message: This statement has been reverted here until source information can be provided:
:"Switzerland, determined to remain independant from Germany, also supported the Allies to a great extent."
Nobs01 16:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrals

message: The article is not about neutral countries. I have re-titled and re-worded this section, and added mention of Belgium and Iceland. The Oslo Group is worthy of an article in its own right. Grant65 (Talk) July 9, 2005 07:45 (UTC)
:However, several of the "neutrals" became belligerents from the early days of the War and  became allies to one side or the other; Luxembourg joined the London exile group; Finland joined the Anti-Comintern Part (Axis); a strong case can can be made Denmark & Norway contributed significant manpower and resources to the Axis cause.  Hence, since the list begins with "Original allies", and many of the Oslo Group who in fact did not remain "neutral", were allied to one side of the other, they should be treated from the early days of the war.  Also, the reason this article is necessary is becuase of the breackdown of the League of Nations and World War I alliances, and this group figures prominantly in that reallignment.  Otherwise you run the risk of introducing them somewhere after a 1942 timeline (creation of the UNO) which gives an entitrely distorted picture. Nobs01 9 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean: the ex-members of the Oslo Group are still discussed in Allies of World War II, immediately after the Commonwealth section, which is when members of those respective groups joined the war as Allies(or did not, e.g. Éire, Sweden and Finland). What sense does it make to discuss Finland in an article about the Allies of World War II? Grant65 (Talk) 01:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
::Finland, along with the Baltic state (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) is an extremely important part of this discussion.  From 23 August 1939 to 22 June 1941, the so-called Communazi period, after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and before Operation Barbarossa, the USSR and the Third Reich essentially were allied.  The USSR participated in the dismemberment of Poland.  The USSR 'annexed' the Baltic states in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, an action which the United States never recognized; the boundaries of the Soviet Union, where in fact, disputed by the United States of America right down to the dissolution of the Soiviet Union in 1992.  Later, Finland did join the Anti-Comintern Pact.  But the eriod known as the Winter War remains an embarassment for the Western Allies, because the essentially condoned a Soviet "War of aggression" against Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, and a few other territories can be added.  In December of in 1939 the USSR was booted from the League of Nations for this action, and I don't recall any Nuremberg type tribunal ever being held to hold them to account.  This article, without proper treatment of these various subjects from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, will simply reproduce all the Western propaganda we've heard for 66 years and paper over the Western betrayal (it didn't begin with Yalta).  The Winter War needs to integrated into this article. Also, the treatment of Denmark & Iceland might need some clarification too. Nobs01 18:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oslo Group

message: The transfer of content to Allies of World War I and Allies of World War II, noted in the section above, was a good idea, but it leaves this article weak.  More importantly, the article is about the word itself, making it a poor encyclopedia article; see The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles.  (This is one reason the creation of the WWI and WWII pages was an improvement.)  I suggest that this page become a disambiguation page, on which a lot of the current content could remain.  Sections would address coalitions in war, the usage in identity politics, and miscellaneous topics (e.g. "In film").  I can do this, but I thought such a change should be proposed for discussion first.  MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with disambiguation page 

message: I would suggest picking one cutoff value and then using it across the board instead of different values for different nations (and then have to list them all).
You lose some of the extant overall information by significantly cropping the US results while cropping other values to a lesser extent.
Enderwigginau (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden results in “Preferred Allies” chart 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Allied Powers (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Allied Forces (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 03:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Alliance#International opinion seems highly irrelevant to the general topic of alliances.  It's dedicated entirely a single 2017 public opinion poll about individuals' "Most preferred ally in case of military threat".--Pharos (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alliance#International opinion]]