Talk:Allies of World War II

"Co-Belligerents"

The whole point of the "Co-belligerents" was that they weren't Allied countries. Why are we listing them in the infobox, in an article about the Allies, without sources saying that they were Allied countries? Notably none of the sources referred to above - not even the Bowman source that tries to give an extensive listing of Allied countries - includes them in their list of Allied countries. This is different to the Finnish wartime claim only to have ever been a "co-belligerent" of the Axis, since most sources just lump Finland in with the Axis anyway and describe it as having been an Axis state. Few sources (very possibly no sources), when listing the Allies, includes Finland/Italy/Romania/Bulgaria as unambiguously members of the Allies. FOARP (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The infobox does distinguish co-belligerents from Allies, in that it does not use the word "Allies" to refer to the co-belligerents, and makes clear they formerly fought on the Axis side. It does seem useful for the sake of completeness to have a list of all the countries that fought against Germany and Japan, whether or not they formally signed the Declaration of United Nations, etc. World War II does not do that; it defers that list to the two articles on the Allies and Axis sides. Would it help to make the label even more specific like adding "non-Allies" in some way? -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there are two issues: 1) How do we classify the Allies, the anti-Axis belligerents and the signatories to the Declaration of the United Nations in the article? 2) How much information about them do we put in the Info Box?

I don't think complex and contested information belongs in the Info Box Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The only (almost) universally accepted information about the Allies is that there was a Big Three: Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States. Therefore this is the only information that should be in the info box. However, the Info Box should also have a category named "Other Anti-Axis nations" (or similar wording) which links to a Table in the article which lists all these nations and the date(s) they declared war on any of the Axis powers or signed the declaration of the UN. The Table could also note whether they actually took arms against an Axis power. The Table should be sortable either alphabetically or by the date they declared war (or signed a relevant document).

As for how these nations are grouped and discussed in the article, a possible structure is mostly geographic which avoids contested issues about their status as belligerents/non-belligerents/occupied powers etc. Each nation can then be discussed separately and the complexities about their status dealt with.

Proposed new structure:

1) History

a) Origins

b) Formation of "The Grand Alliance"

c) United Nations

2) Anti-Axis nations

a) The Big Three

b) Commonwealth of Nations (incuding India and British colonies). This could be a sub-section of the Big Three.

c) Other European nations

d), e), f) etc. Other American nations, Asia nations, African nations etc.

See also the discussion above about the Info Box. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems like it would be an improvement as the existing structure is a bit confusing. Certainly if the list of co-belligerents is taken out of the infobox, it should be included in the table of which nations declared war vs. actually fought, as proposed. -- Beland (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favour of taking the "co-belligerents" out of the infobox, because no source unambiguously identifies these as Allied nations, and in an infobox for an article about Allied nations, you would expect the countries in it to be Allied nations.

For the others I think the issue is 50 countries is too long for an infobox. It's like listing all the cast of a film, or all of the players in a football team.

"Allied combatant" countries gives a smaller list, but no reliable source I've seen lists all the "combatant" countries. It is also not a clear-cut distinction. Consider the following examples:

• Cuban warships sank a U-boat so was Cuba a "combatant" based on that single incident?
• A Colombian warship attacked a U-boat so was Colombia a "combatant"?
• Venezuela and Panama had merchant ships sunk during the war - for example by U-502. Were they "combatants"?
• Vessels of many countries travelled in Allied convoys and were sunk - were these "combatants"? Even the neutrals like the Republic of Ireland?
• Do colonial troops make a colony a "combatant"?

This kind of issue is inevitable when we try to decide categories ourselves rather than just going with what reliable sources say. FOARP (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I've moved most of the list out of the infobox and into the "Summary table" section. The prose of the article explains the circumstances of some countries in detail already, but for the remainder, there is now space to explain the fuzzy boundaries.

It's certainly interesting to know the extent to which each country was militarily involved in the war. That could be done in summary by adding a fourth column to the table indicating each country's contribution. The Big Three might be something like "Land invasion, naval bombardment, air raids, espionage" whereas others might be "Munitions, U-boat attack" with a link to the related article. This would "show not tell" and avoid making a classification as to what counts for "combatant" status. It also means the "co-belligerents" could be included, just marking them as not signing the various Allied documents. -- Beland (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Foreign languages in Info Box

Hello all

I don't see any reason why the French, Russian and Chinese words for Allies are listed at the head of the info box. I suggest we remove them for the following reasons:

1) This is the English language Wikipedia so we should only list the English name of the article.

2) The information isn't sourced and as far as I can see isn't mentioned in the article.

3) If we are going to list the foreign language terms for the Allies why only the French, Chinese and Russian terms? France and China aren't even listed in the info box as part of the Big Three.

4) In any event, the links to "French", "Chinese" and "Russian" should be removed. These are common English words and don't need to be linked MOS:OVERLINK

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Whizz40 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hungary an Allied power?

An editor has recently added Hungary as one of the Allied powers in the Soviet zone of influence. As far as I know, the there was no recognised government of Hungary which fought on the Allied side. A provisional government was appointed by the Soviet Union in the areas it occupied and some Hungarian volunteer units fought with the Soviet army, but more fought against both the Soviets and the Arrow Cross. This article is getting to the absurd point that all the main Axis powers are also portrayed as allied powers if one of the Allies appointed a puppet government on any part of its territory. One problem is that one of the cited sources is in Russian with no translation. Under policy, the relevant sections of foreign language sources should be translated into English so that English speaking editors can assess their reliability as sources. WP:NONENG.

@Opostylov Could you provide a translation of this Russian source? As far as I know, the provisional Hungarian government was established by the occupying Soviet power and didn't hold national elections until after the war.

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin the provisional government was established in december 1944, and in january 1945 it signed an armistice with the ussr and the western allies (what means that it was at least de facto recognized) - you can read its text here. this provisional government was formed by the provisional parliament formed by the elections which were held in december 1944, so it was not just appointed, it was formed on a relatively democratic basis, its just that the elections were idirect and the party composition of the govt was agreed with moscow. from its behalf, the government of hungary promised to form 8 divisions allied with the ussr and began the mobilization of volunteers to the new army which was being created by the nkvd in pow camps; some companies of these volunteers and larger units and military engineering brigades were sent at the front, the largest unit was the Volunteer Regiment of Buda. hungarian government managed to form only 2 divisions of the promised 8, and they were sent at the front when germany signed the capitulation.

so it didnt have an actual big army, but it was recognized, and these small units were loyal to this government; since a czech battalion of the red army is enough to include czechoslovakia into the list of participants of the war in 1943, and since a de jure croatian regiment is enough to include croatia as a full participant on the eastern front, i dont see why units loyal to this (recognized) government are not enough to include hungaryOpostylov (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

wdym by "but more fought against both the Soviets and the Arrow Cross"? Opostylov (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

also one of the sources i cited, "the hungarian royal army in ww2", is in english; i cant fully read it cuz google books doesnt allow me to but it seems that it describes more or less the same stuff as the book in russian Opostylov (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem with the inclusion of other states as "Allies". I think this whole section on "Client and Occupied states" doesn't belong in this article because it is discussing things other than the Allies of WWII. I am aware that a provisional government was set up by the Soviet Union in Soviet occupied areas following partial "elections" in those areas. I am also aware that this provisional government signed an armistice with the Soviet Union. However, I am not aware that it signed the Declaration of the United Nations before the end of the war or fielded an army of its own. My understanding is that the Hungarian forces in the occupied areas were volunteers, POWS and conscripts and they served in the Soviet Army. My understanding is also that the Horthy government also signed an armistice with the Soviet Union in October 1944 and that many in the regular Hungarian army were still loyal to the former government and continued to fight into April 1945. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I've read the English source. I will look up the other sources you mentioned. In the meantime how about we say, "Following elections in the Soviet occupied areas of Hungary, a Provisional National Government of Hungary [ru] was established in the Soviet-occupied city of Debrecen on December 22, 1944. The provisional government signed an armistice with the Soviet Union in January 1945 and began forming small military units to assist the USSR, the largest of which was the Volunteer Regiment of Buda. Following the Soviet occupation of Budapest in February 1945 and the collapse of the Iron Cross government in March, the Provisional National Government became the temporary semi-independent government of Hungary under the supervision of the Soviet Union. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"subordinate to the Soviet-dominated Allied Control Commision" would be correct i think

their relations are described in laszlo kontler's "A History of Hungary: Millennium in Central Europe" but he doesnt mention the 1944 elections Opostylov (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

or like "subordinate to Allied Control Commision" set up/maintained/idk by the USSR Opostylov (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)