others expamples mexico against axis contributed escuadr n pacific argentina against axis contributed nothing in terms of personnel rebuttal quote we use the term grand alliance or allies to describe an activated military alliance in ww that included japan and italy and again use the term allies to describe on group in ww that does not include japan and italy not a big deal except of course you can tell the anti japanese wikipedia sites here because they do not mention japan as a member of the allies despite it being and undisputed historical fact by english and japanese historians how i see it used in asian history books what are you talking about italy did change sides in wwii and a co belligerent state supporting the allies established but the rsi was also set up a state in the north however japan was never part of the allies in world war ii as for japanese historians and history books haven t you heard about japanese history textbook controversies in wwi brazil declared war on germany in however there was never any formal alliance signed between brazil and the entente the triple entente wasn t even a formal alliance but an agreement there was a unity agreement however that stated that they would not seek a separate peace with germany britain only declared war on germany after it invaded belgium and the united states declared war on germany and austria hungary in yet not on bulgaria and the ottoman empire they are called allies because they were united for a common purpose the defeat of germany and or of the central powers as a whole american industrial strength in terms of munitions and armaments also bolstered the british french and other allies in wwii the allies were overall fighting a common enemy at one point in time and had a common purpose some countries declared war yet did not send personnel to fight but assisted in the the allies in economic or other forms severing relations etc allies amd axis the allies were those countries that joined together in an association against germany then later italy and japan and those countries movements associated with them the axis in the beginning britain and it s commonwealth empire france etc and later countries that joined them against these powers including the us and soviet union and exiled governments there were tensions between the powers especially roosevelt de gaulle and churchill roosevelt stalin however there was mutual co operation in the form of lend lease and other agreements on january all of the belligerents signed a document called the declaration by united nations the parties pledged to uphold the atlantic charter to employ all their resources in the war against the axis powers and that none of the signatory nations would seek to negotiate a separate peace with germany japan and the other member of the axis not all of the countries delcared war on all of the members of the axis immediately or some not at all eg brazil only declaring war on japan on some countries like only declared war on japan because they entered to late in the war like chile other countries like the norway and poland declared war on japan yet they did not contribute forces against japan a global war all i am saying is that if we want to portray that period of history accurately that in the same way we do not include the finnish winter war nor the ongoing chinese civil war as part of what we call ww that we should record there being separate wars one in the west europe mediterranean and one in the east pacific and east asia and therefore separate groups of friends and foes separate formations of allies then we also appear more moral historically what i am saying was that the war in europe and the war in asia were separate wars separate groups of alliances separate military alliances we deliberately or just simply irresponsibly confuse by using the same title allies or grand alliances once we admit they were separate wars then it all makes more sense and make us look all the more moral so even today we use the same title of an alliance to refer to different wars at the very same time in this case right next to eachother even but if you tell a canadian german or hollander etc that they are members of the same coalition at war in iraq they will take great offense at your ignorance '' i can t help but wonder if my student is right and the reason western historian go along with inaccurately using the dangerously over generalised