Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The closing decision of the

The best we can do, it's apparent, is keep looking for sources for this quite important episode in WWII history. Opinions and suggestions are welcome. Only, please, let's not replay the RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• A quote from the source: The most important factor in swaying the Soviets eventually to enter into an alliance with the United States was the Nazi decision to launch its invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. What you are doing is more tag bombing than a serious request for a source while everyone knows that there was an alliance. The Banner talk 13:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I already warned everyone that the contested episode is not among those

"we all know about". If, as you say, "everyone knows" about it, then it would have been trivially easy to collect a dozen sources, let alone one, that states explicitly that the USSR "joined the Allied camp in June 1941." We have yet to find such a source and it is unlikely we will since the Allied camp did not even exist in June 1941! The United States had yet to enter the war. You are confusing the date the USSR started to fight against Germany in WWII with the date, as such might exist, when the USSR officially joined the Allied camp. They are not the same. (Every country joined formally, through signing declarations and agreements. It's all in the lemma.) The hunt, for all intents and purposes , is still on. -The Gnome (talk

) 13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The Allied camp did exist in 1941. The first inter-Allied conference was in June 1941 and didn't include the Soviet Union or the United States.[1]https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtjames.asp. The second inter-Allied conference was in September 1941 and did include the Soviet Union (but not the United States)[2]https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/interall.asp. The current wording of the lead says that the Soviet Union joined the Allied after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. This is correct. My concern is with the info box which implies that the Soviet Union joined the Allies on the very day that it was invaded by Germany. This is incorrect. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

proffer evidence

that the Soviets retroactively joined the Allies, since the USSR was invaded by Nazi Germany on the morning of 22 June 1941. Almost up until they were invaded, the Soviets were still sending over to Germany truckloads and trainloads of products, in compliance with German-Soviet agreements (per Ericson, Edward E. (1999), Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941). So, even accepting that there was some kind of an "Allied camp" in early June 1941, we cannot reasonably claim that the USSR joined it at that time.

As to the term "after [date X]": It can mean "any time after [date X]" or "right after [date X]". The first term is unacceptably vague. The second term is not supported by sources. And the problem with the term manifests itself as soon as it appears in the

infobox, as you pointed out. -The Gnome (talk

) 14:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@The Gnome: Effectively, you are trying to circumvent the mentioned RFC by demanding an exact date. The Banner talk 10:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Primo, a word about your personal approach to this issue: So far, it's been reprehensible and counter productive. The totality of your input contains demeaning asides & personal remarks. E.g. "did you just slap a tag on it?" [you wanted to say simply "you tagged it?" but that evidently wasn't salty enough], "What you are doing is more tag bombing" ["more"? when did I ever "tag-bombed" anything? not now, not ever!], "you are trying to circumvent the mentioned RFC" [now accusing me of a serious infraction], and so on. I once again, but for the last time, ask you,
  polite
  . Shouldn't be too hard this, should it?

Segundo, on the issue and the pertinent RfC: I quoted verbatim the RfC outcome! How can that be an attempt at circumventing it? The outcome clearly states (a) We leave things as they are in the text ("no consensus to change the date"), (b) the issue itself of the exact date the USSR joined the Allied camp remains per sources unclear ("It is clear from the discussion that this is not a simple matter, and sources provide different starting points, as well as different stages in the process that could be seen as the date of [the USSR] joining [the Allies]"), and finally, and most importantly, (c) the issue of the date remains open and has not been resolved through that RfC ("There is likely some compromise that can be worked out, but not in this RFC"). That's crystal clear. So, placing a simple cn tag ("citation needed") one the main text's sentence "The Soviet Union...joined the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941" is acting fully within and according to the RfC outcome. The sentence, though lacking verification, as the RfC closure statement makes clear, remains up, again per RfC closure, but the invitation to research this further is posted up. It's actually a very simple, non-antagonistic in any sense, and not accudatory invitation. Editors have demonstrably tried their best. As it happens, I'm a member of the Military History cabal. We have to try harder. We will, too. Join along. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the RFC states "no consensus to change the date". But you want an exact date complete with source. I know it is a bit harsh, but to me that is trying to circumvent the RFC to try and change the date. The Banner talk 16:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Did you try to find a date and source?

It should go without saying but since it needs to be said, yes, by all means, I did search high and low. I was more than surprised that no established source offers a precise date. I took part in the above RfC and submitted as much. I consider the date to be a highly important one, or whatever can be an acceptable substitute for a precise date (e.g. and I'll hypothesize here, "The USSR joined de facto the Allied camp in [...] through, etc"). This is not some peripheral noise-making on the issue of World War II. -The Gnome (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@The Gnome The failed verification tag in the lead should go. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union became one of the Allies at some point soon after the German invasion of the USSR and the cited source supports this. There is no problem with having vague wording when there is a dispute over precise dates (as is very often the case in historical matters, historians are even divided over when WWII started and ended). I put forward an alternative precise date for the USSR joining the Allies in the RfC but there was no consensus for it. I put forward alternative wordings for the lead and the relevant parts of the info box but there was no consensus for them. If you have a suggestion for alternative wording or some other compromise please put it forward, but I don't think a failed citation notice helps. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

supports a precise date - and, perhaps you can trust me on this, I've searched high and low and back again to find it! Therefore, it is unacceptable to leave as is the vague wording now used because it can be legitimately interpreted as "right after the German invasion," which is patently false. If we want the cn tag to go, then we should amend the current wording to one closer to what we know and clearer. How do you, or anyone else reading this section, propose we go about it? -The Gnome (talk

) 07:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This source gives 12 July as the date the Soviet Union joined the allies. I put this date forward, but there was no consensus to change to it. I also put forward a couple of other suggestions which were knocked back. I think I've done my bit. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• As you say we just had an RFC, We do not keep revisiting, the matter should be closed for a while. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The RfC was closed without prejudice. The closing decision recognized, quite explicitly, that there is likely some compromise [on the date] that can be worked out since sources provide different starting points, as well as different stages in the process that could be seen as the date of [the USSR] joining [the Allies]. This is what is being done here: calling upon interested editors towards some kind of compromise on the appropriate time period.-The Gnome (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I still call it circumventing an RFC, sorry. The Banner talk 22:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to label anything by any title. My position was presented and explained and awaits rebuttal. -The Gnome (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Allies of World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please, i wont do vandalism or anything i swear i just want to add country like Albania or Denmark 114.142.172.36 (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not keep[asking for edits, use the one you already have, now what sources do you have that say they are allies? Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Allies of World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add some allies of world war 2 for information 114.142.172.36 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Which ones? Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk

) 13:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think he means the different American states that fought in the

American Theatre, North and South American was working with the allies. Also Denmark and San Marino did fight the axis powers. LuxembourgLover (talk

) 16:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I think San Marino was fought over, it did not resist. They need to produce RS saying who these allied powers were. not just RS saying they were battlefields. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

According to sources 1 2, they provided support, while is was small support (it is one of the smallest country) the police and military did support the allies when they where invaded but I do not know if the military forces saw any combat. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

And after the battle, did they remain combatants? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I understand they supported the allies, let allied troops move though, and did remove in fascist leader. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

From what you understand? Do you have any RS that says they were an allied country, not how you interpret it (see

wp:or), but one that actually says they were. Slatersteven (talk

) 13:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

They where invaded by the axis (two 1 2 more sources), they also declared war on Germany "Little San Marino declared war on Germany on September 21st, 1944 after the Allied invasion and occupation." This is clear that they should be put with the allies if we include the american states, despite many of them only activity in the American theater. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Find a decent RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I found another source, in addition it is mentioned on this Wikipedia page with another sources. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

With theses sources, I also think we should include the two leader during the time. They where Francesco Balsimelli and Sanzio Valentini durring the battle. They also had Teodoro Lonfernini andLeonida Suzzi Valli followed by Alvaro Casali and Vittorio Valentini who led them untill the end of the war. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Untill a dencent RS (I.E. not one cited to a wiki, for example) is produced I oppose adding any new combatants, and leaders should be limited only to major ones. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

What military units from Denmark and San Marino joined the fighting? And I do mean: national units, not individuals. The Banner talk 16:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the sources, wikipila mentions how they fought.

Sources

1

2

3

Wikipedia pages

Danish resistance movement

Danish Brigade in Sweden

Denmark in World War II

I know San Marino is not the most well sources, but Denmark should 100% be included. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The brigade was never used. Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Says nothing about units under the San Marino flag actually joining the fighting
2. Says nothing about units under the San Marino flag actually joining the fighting
3. Dead link
4. a) Wikipedia can not act as source for Wikipedia; b) Says nothing about units under the Danish flag actually joining the fighting
5. a) Wikipedia can not act as source for Wikipedia; b) quote": Ultimately it was only deployed on the day of the German surrender in the country and was involved in very little fighting. Not a relevant fighting unit.
6. a) Wikipedia can not act as source for Wikipedia; b) Says nothing about units under the Danish flag actually joining the fighting

So no reason to add San Marino and Denmark. The Banner talk 19:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This needs closing now, and maybe reopened after people have read

) 09:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

This edit request to Allies of World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to fix something on this page 2600:1700:3680:8B70:C13A:D894:A3AA:1A24 (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC) there is one principal ally that you're missing

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk

) 19:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023

This edit request to Allies of World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, can I have permission to edit, there is just one thing on the side bar I have to correct 44naytions (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Banner, regarding this, why do you call a grainy PNG map from 2006 that grates the eyes (File:Map of participants in World War II.png) as better than the clean SVG (File:Map of participants in World War II.svg)? It's absurd to me. The svg is already used in Axis powers and other articles, so it's inconsistent to employ a different format for an article about the Allies. +JMJ+ (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

They are not the same map, this (thus) may not just be a format issue. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

They also (both) look inaccurate, when did Turkey enter the war? Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

23 February 1945, according to the article. That is to say: declaration of war to get access to the UN. The Banner talk 17:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I see, so not really a combatant, its why I never picked up on it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the maps should be renamed to something like "Map of countries that declared war on the Axis in WW2". Also because Ireland was dejure neutral but defacto was part of the Allies. The Banner talk 10:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

1) The PNG-map is only 50 Kb against 1006 kB for SVG-map, so way quicker to download. And some people still have metered connections.

2) The PNG-map is effectively bigger by making more effective use of the area available (rectangle vs rounded). On the SVG-map countries as the Netherlands and Denmark are hardly visible, while on the PNG-map they are visible and recognisable.

The Banner talk 17:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

But they have differences in nations, why is Iran an ally in one, but not the other (not the only difference by the way)? Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The opening sentence is ambiguous and potentially misleading. It can be easily read (and I first read it this way) as stating that the Allies were led by Germany. (1) The antecedent of the clause "led by Nazi Germany" is not clear and could be either "The Allies" or "The Axis Powers" (2) It is likely to be read as referring to the Allies because the subject of the article and of the sentence is the Allies, but the sentence ends with a list of the Axis powers and does not include a list of the Allies.

This may seem like a nitpick. But I think it's important that a person not familiar with the terms "Axis" and "Allies" should be able to quickly and unambiguously find out from the opening of the article. Readers may stop after the first sentence if it appears to answer their question, plus the hover-text when "Allies" is linked from another article shows mainly just the first sentence.

I suggest removing the list of Axis powers and ending the sentence there. Readers can click the link to find that list. If the list of Axis powers is important to include, I would shuffle things around so the list of Allies appears first and so there is no ambiguity. Bchillen (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Y Done. Whizz40 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)