Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

RfC Date Soviet Union joined the Allies

There is no consensus to change the date the Soviet Union joined the Allies to be found in this discussion. It is clear from reading 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 joining. There is likely some compromise that can be worked out, but not in this RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Should the date the Soviet Union joined the Allies be changed to July 1941. Alternatively, should it be changed to June-July 1941? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Statement. The article currently states that the Soviet Union joined the allies in June 1941 (that is, immediately after Operation Barbarossa.) An alternative date is the signing of the Anglo-Soviet agreement. Most general sources are vague, stating only that the Soviet Union joined the Allies "after" Germany attacked it in June 1941. Detailed studies of Anglo-Soviet relations focus more on the weeks of mutual suspicion between the UK and the Soviet Union before they reached a formal agreement on cooperation against Nazi Germany on 12 July 1941. I favour the 12 July date because the Soviet Union did not become an ally of the UK and its allies the moment it was attacked by Germany. Some degree of formalised military, strategic and political cooperation is required for countries to become allies in the ordinary English sense of the word. Alternatively, I would be happy with a ranged date of June-July 1941 as this gives an indication of the three weeks of tricky negotiations before the countries reached an agreement to cooperate with each other. It is also relevant that the UK consulted with the US, Canada, Australia and NZ before concluding an agreement with Stalin. Relevant sources include [1][2][3] Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • JuneAs this is the date they entered the war, against Germany. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • June. For other two main belligerents (Britain and USA), the infobox uses the date they entered the war. What is the reason for using a different criterion for the USSR?
Additional arguments against July are as follows:
1. It is unclear why the date of signing a preliminary bilateral agreement is considered as the date of joining a multilateral alliance.
2. It is unclear what sources support July. The sources provided by AA do not support this date. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • July Being invaded by Nazi Germany did not automatically make the USSR an ally of the United Kingdom and other countries with which the UK was allied; it certainly was not before it was attacked (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, Soviet invasion of Poland). After Operation Barbarossa started, Stalin could have chosen not to enter into an agreement and not to cooperate at all with the UK and other allied countries or even to have attacked the UK and its allies. In short, the USSR became a combatant in the Second World War in June 1941 September 1939 upon its invasion of Poland (effectively in a secret alliance with Nazi Germany) and switched sides in June, after being attached by Nazi Germany, and became one of the Allies in July upon signing of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement. The reason for the different criterion for the USSR as compared to the UK and USA is that those two countries were always allied and always on the same side; that is not true for the USSR so criteria in addition to the date they became a combatant against Nazi Germany are necessary. Whizz40 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • June, with comment that the entry was formalized by the July agreement. Common English usage includes the usage that the U.S. enterred the war against Japan on December 7, 1941, though the actual declaration was later. Russia and Britain were fighting a common enemy, with or withour formal papers.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • July. I have moved my previous statement here to make it clear that it is my contribution to the discussion. Most general sources are vague, stating only that the Soviet Union joined the Allies "after" Germany attacked it in June 1941. Detailed studies of Anglo-Soviet relations focus more on the weeks of mutual suspicion between the UK and the Soviet Union before they reached a formal agreement on cooperation against Nazi Germany on 12 July 1941. I favour the 12 July date because the Soviet Union did not become an ally of the UK and its allies the moment it was attacked by Germany. Some degree of formalised military, strategic and political cooperation is required for countries to become allies in the ordinary English sense of the word. Alternatively, I would be happy with a ranged date of June-July 1941 as this gives an indication of the three weeks of tricky negotiations before the countries reached an agreement to cooperate with each other. It is also relevant that the UK consulted with the US, Canada, Australia and NZ before concluding an agreement with Stalin. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • June I don't think July is significant. The British did not sign a formal treaty of alliance with the Soviet Union until May 1942, and the US not until June 1942. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • July, on 12 July 1942, the first agreement was reached between the UK and the Soviet Union to support each other in the fight against Nazi Germany. Marcelus (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • June The history books I've read commonly note that the Axis invasion of the USSR on 22 June 1941 brought the Soviets into the war on the Allied side. The paperwork to make the alignment official came later. For instance, Winston Churchill, famously, gave a speech on 22 June 1941 in which he pledged to support the USSR ("It follows, therefore, that we shall give whatever help we can to Russia and to the Russian people. We shall appeal to all our friends and Allies in every part of the world to take the same course and pursue it as we shall, faithfully and steadfastly to the end"), and historians generally note that he saw the Soviet Union as an ally from that point forward. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • July. We don’t say that Austria and Czechoslovakia automatically became Allies when Germany invaded them, do we? Hitler may have pushed the USSR out of the Axis camp, but it remained up to Stalin and the Western Allies to make it one of them. (The USSR had already become a combatant in September 1939, throwing off the facile logic of some of the other rationales for June votes.)  —Michael Z. 14:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    We do not say that Austria and Czechoslovakia automatically became Allies when Germany invaded them for an obvious reason: Austria had never been the Ally, and Czechoslovakia didn't declare war on Germany.
    You incorrectly assumed that we claim that USSR or USA joined the Allies when they were attacked by Germany of Japan, accordingly. That is wrong. They joined the Allies when they declared a war on these powers. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    Cz-Sl. was maybe not a good example. How about Albania?
    I am unconvinced by your logic. USSR did not join the Axis when it signed Molotov–Ribbentrop, nor when it entered the war against Poland, did it? We know that because Stalin tried to join the Axis but was rebuffed by Hitler. USSR was aligned with Axis until attacked, then aligned with Allies by circumstances, until it actually became one.
    But if you insist on defining membership more loosely, I can be convinced to list USSR as Axis member up to June and Ally after that.  —Michael Z. 15:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    Both Czechoslovakia and Austria are definitely bad examples. Austria was annexed and ceased to exist. The annexation was recognized] by many Western powers (but not by USSR). This annexation was declared as null and void only in 1943, when Moscow declaration was signed.
    Czechoslovakia declared no war on Germany in 1939, so it was not considered as a belligerent. Later, when her governvent in exile signed Declaration of United Nations, she joined the Allies.
    WRT Albania, I am not sure this article mentions it at all, except the mention of retroactive recognition of it as an "Associated Power" in 1946. (Communist partisans should be left beyond the scope) But is it sufficient to claim that Albania joined the Allies when it was occupied by Italy? Such a creativity would be a classical OR.
    Anyway, you forgot about the most important argument: so far, no sources have been presented that state that USSR joined the Allies specifically because Molotov and Cripps signed their declaration.
    Just think: we are voting for two options, one of which is not supported by reliable sources. That is a blatant violation of our policy. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    WRT "USSR did not join the Axis when it signed Molotov–Ribbentrop", you forgot that:
    • There was no Axis by that time, but Anti-Comintern pact and Pact of Steel were already in force. These pacts were directed against USSR, and they remained in force.
    • The non-secret part of MRP was just a non-aggression treaty (similar treaty was signed, and remained in force during almost the whole WWII, between Japan and USSR).
    • The secret protocol stipulated no joint actions, it just defined "spheres of interest". If you compare it with, e.g. British guarantees to Poland (which was a formal reason why Britain joined the war), the obligations were clearly outlined.
    In 1939, it was Nazi propaganda, who tried to present MRP as an alliance. Thus, the Nazi film about "join parade in Brest" combined the events that happened in two different days (during the first day, German troops left Brest, and Krivoshein was one out of few Soviet representatives), whereas the Soviet troops entered the city on the next day). In contrast, Soviet authorities were much more cautious. If you read, e.g. Gorodetsky (the source from the below list), you may find that British officials also considered USSR as a neutral power during 1939-41. Actually, the idea that the USSR was a Nazi ally is exactly what Nazi propaganda was trying to convince people during the first two years of the war. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    1. Axis had been in use since the Italo-German protocol of October 23, 1936; so you are wrong saying that there was no axis by that time
    2. The RMP was never a simple non-aggression pact, it involved the division of Central and Eastern Europe and cooperation in its partition; moreover, it was followed by friendship, border and trade treaties. Comparing the RMP to treaties with Japan is a complete misrepresentation of basic facts.
    3. Joint actions occurred, primarily during the joint invasion of Poland.
    4. The March 1939 guarantees to Poland were not the reason for the UK's entry into the war. The reason was the British-Polish military alliance of August 1939. Same goes for France.
    5. Virtually everything you say about the parade in Brest is untrue. The city surrendered to the Germans on September 17, Soviet troops also entered the city on September 18; on September 22 there was a ceremonial handover of the city to the Soviets combined with a parade. The German troops then left Brest.
    This is the second time I have caught you spreading inaccuracies on a talk pages. I would ask you to stop such practices.
    Being an ally does not imply deep love and bragging about it to the whole world. No one claims that the Soviets and the Nazis ignited a sincere love for each other. It would not be the first and last alliance resulting from a community of interests or political necessity, the Soviets were obviously ashamed of their close contacts with the Germans, it does not mean that there were none. Marcelus (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    Re 1. The Italo-German protocol didn't involve Japan. That means after Pearl Harbor the two main theaters of war wouldn't have merged into WWII. The US would remain neutral in the European conflict.
    Re 2. "it involved the division of Central and Eastern Europe and cooperation in its partition" It involved partition, but not cooperation: it literally said "Germany may do whatever it wants, but it should not cress the Bug river etc."
    " it was followed by friendship, border and trade treaties" Yes, but that period quickly ended. Occupation of the Baltic states was considered as a hostile act by Germany, and they started preparation for Barbarossa. USSR - Germany "friendship" during that short period can be compared with the UK-US friendship before 1941. We do not consider the US the Ally before Pearl harbor.
    3. "Joint actions occurred, primarily during the joint invasion of Poland." I know just one example of cooperation: Germany requested some Soviet radio stations to broadcast some key words, but they explained that that needed for "aeronautical experiments".
    4. "The March 1939 guarantees to Poland were not the reason for the UK's entry into the war. The reason was the British-Polish military alliance of August 1939." This "alliance" is called "British guarantees" No other alliance was signed. In addition, that agreement guaranteed Polish independence, but not territorial integrity, so had Hitler taken just Danzig, Britain would probably not have to declare a war.
    5. "Virtually everything you say about the parade in Brest is untrue. The city surrendered to the Germans on September 17, Soviet troops also entered the city on September 18" A BBC article (unfortunately, I found it only in Russian, but google can translate it) says that this question is controversial. Krivoshein says that Wehrmacht marched from the town, and Red Army entered it, but these events were consecutive, not concurrent. I didn't find much information about it, and I agree that Krivoshein had reasons to conceal the fact of participation in a joint parade.
    The problem, however, is that no photos are available where German and Soviet troops are shown together: we see either German troops marching near German officers or Soviet troops marching near Soviet soldiers, similar to what the BBC article shows. The photo of Krivoshein and Guderian is the only photo from that parade where Soviet and German military are together. That reinforces my doubts in a validity of the claim that the parade was joint. German propaganda did its best to present it as a joint parade, but it failed to film or photograph Soviet and German military marching together or immediately after each other.
    That confirms Krivoshein's claim, although indirectly. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    1. That's irrelevant. Axis existed way before 1939.
    2. Irrelevant how long it lasted.
    3. Not true. The radio station in Minsk began broadcasting navigation signals, needed by the Luftwaffe conducting air operations over Poland, as early as 1 September.
    4. Not true. On 25 August the UK and Poland entered into a full-fledged military alliance. The alliance is at least a bilateral treaty, the guarantees are unilateral; the UK made such guarantees to Poland on 31 March 1939. The March 31 guarantees did not cover the Gdańsk area, the 25 August alliance clearly stated that in the event of German military action in the Gdańsk area the UK would support Poland. (I don't know how is that relevant here, but nonetheless you aren't correct).
    5. Stop repeating ahistorical distortions. RS clearly identify the September 22 parade in Brest as a joint parade, besides that many photos show German and Soviet participants in the parade. Moreover, German and Soviet commanders receive the parading troops together. Everything you say about the parade is not true. I would ask you not to spread false information in the Wikipedia space. The content you are promoting is disturbing. Marcelus (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
    Actually, the "joint parade" story is an indication of a desperate lack of any serious evidences of Nazi-Soviet cooperation during invasion of Poland. This parade seems to be almost the only evidence of cooperation. That means the claim that there was a cooperation has little factual support. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    1. "Axis existed way before 1939" I assume under "Axis" you mean this anti-soviet alliance?
    2. "Irrelevant how long it lasted" Why?
    3. "Not true. The radio station in Minsk began broadcasting navigation signals, needed by the Luftwaffe conducting air operations over Poland" The true reason was not explained to the Soviet authorities by Germans. And the station was not allowed to broadcast the whole list of key words, just the word "Minsk". Actually, one has to have a very strong imagination to call it "cooperation". If that is the example of cooperation, then there was virtually no cooperation between Moscow and Berlin during the pivotal days of German invasion.
    4. "On 25 August the UK and Poland entered into a full-fledged military alliance." Anglo-Polish alliance has a secret protocol that limited its scope with Germany only. I agree that it is hardly relevant.
    5. I am not "repeating ahistorical distortions". I presented the source (BBC), which says the "parade" story is controversial. If you believe BBC is engaged in ahistorical distortion, that is your problem, not mine. :"Everything you say about the parade is not true." That is a very strong claim that needs a strong evidence.
    "German and Soviet commanders receive the parading troops together." Partially correct. Several photos exist that show Guderian and Krivoshein receive the German parading troops together. I also found one photo showing a group of the Red Army military standing near the tribune with Guderian and Krivoshein. However, no photos exist that shows show Guderian and Krivoshein who receive the Red Army parading troops together.
    In general, it seems that the "joint parade" story is a very poorly studied topic. I found no serious analysis of that issue in good sources. Some amateur historians performed a more detailed analysis, but these sources do not meet our quality standards, so we cannot use them. However, since WP:NOR not apply to talk pages, I can talk about that without restrictions.
    Let me reiterate it: no documentary proof existes that Guderian and Krivoshein were receiving parading Red Army troops." I am ready to reconsider my view is you present me such evidences.
    One way or the another, the attention to this "joint parade" demonstrates the desperate lack of other evidences for "collaboration". Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
    1. By Axis I mean Axis; it was used first to describe the Italo-German alliance of 1936.
    2. Because it doesn't change the fact that this alliance existed. Because it is irrelevant to the question of its existence or not. Generally, it confirms that such an agreement existed. Besides, the assessment of whether it was long or not is subjective.
    3. Not true. It was an official request from the Luftwaffe command handed over by the counsellor of the German embassy in Moscow, Gustav Hilger, together with the information about the start of military action against Poland and the incorporation of Danzig into the Reich. Two signals "Richard Wilhelm 1.0" and "Minsk" were transmitted. This was an invaluable aid of a military nature to the Germans.
    5. You wrote incorrectly that Soviet troops entered the city after the German troops had left it. In fact, the first Soviet troops entered Brest on 18 September, the day after the Germans. It is also untrue that the footage from Brest do not show parading Soviet troops.
    The juxtaposition of "parade" and "Торжественный Марш" (solemn march) is fundamentally false. Since there is no fundamental difference between the two terms, the use of one or the other changes nothing in the perception and meaning of the event itself. Marcelus (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    1. The problem with just Italo-German alliance is that it would never lead to a World war: Japan was beyond the scope, and the US would never joined the war against Germany after Pearl Hoabor.
    2. "it doesn't change the fact that this alliance existed" which "alliance"?
    3. It was explained that the broadcast was needed for "aeronautical experiments", and Soviet authorities approved broadcasting of "Minsk" only.
    5. I didn't mean that. Of course they were already stationed in the city, however, there was no joint marching. The German troops marched near tribune where Guderian and Krivoshein were standing, and after that the German flag was replaced with the Soviet flag. A standard procedure of a peaceful transfer of some territory from one party to another.
    Anyway, that is really not interesting. If a joint parade is an indication of allied relationships, then most NATO countries were the allies of Russia (they participated in several victory parades on 9th of May in Moscow).
    Paul Siebert (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    1. Irrelevant.
    2. Germano-Soviet of 1939.
    3. Irrelevant.
    5. Irrelevant. Parade is a symbol of joint invasion and partition of Polish territory. Marcelus (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    1. Then your original argument is irrelevant too.
    2. A military alliance is supposed to put some joint obligations and declare some common political goals. The fact that some sources, colloquially, refer to MRP as an alliance do not allow us to claim that Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were true allies in 1939-41, and that they were treated as such by Britain, France and the US.
    Just answer a simple question: if the USSR was an ally of Germany, why hadn't it declared a war on Britain or France in 1939? Anticipating your possible arguments, the question about a a declaration of a war on Japan by the USSR after Pearl Harbor was a subject of a joint discussion among the Allies, and they agreed that it would be in interest of all Allies if the USSR focused its efforts on the European theatre.
    3. Why? The term "aggression" is pretty well defined in an international law, and broadcasting is not included.
    5. We are not discussing symbols here. And we do not draw our own conclusions from symbols. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    1. No; you claimed that there was no Axis by that time, which is factually wrong.
    2. The Polish-British alliance was only valid in relation to German aggression. Your acknowledgement that the RS call the MRP an "alliance" essentially ends the discussion on whether we can use the term.
    3. Not true.
    5. No we not, we use RS, which calls Brest events as joint Soviet-German parade of victory. Marcelus (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    1. "Te Axis" is a poorly defined term. It has different meanings. If we assume that the Axis is something that was called as such by at least one person, then yes, the Axis already existed in 1937. However, if under "The Axis" we mean the alliance that eventually lead to the WWII (which involved the US), then the true Axis was formed only in 1940.
    2. You are answering to a different question. Just re-read my question.
    3. The term "aggression" was analyzed in details, for examople, by Malksoo, who proved that annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR was an aggression. Just read what IS included into the term "aggression", and what isn't.
    5. Again, some sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    1. Not true; the WW2 started in 1939
    The rest of the point was already answered in details, no sense in repeating myself. Marcelus (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    On September 1939, noone knew that the war between Poland and Germany was a World war II.
    Remember, the war was declared by France and UK on Germany only. Did they declare a war on Italy? Did Italy declared a war on Britain or the UK? In reality, even Italy declared a war on France and Britain only on 10th of May, 1940.
    Until that date, the war was waged between Germany and Poland, the UK and France ONLY.
    Japan was neutral (except her separate war with China and USSR).
    Romania was neutral.
    Hungary was neutral.
    Italy was neutral.
    (A future Axis menber) Finland and (a future Ally) Soviet Union waged a separate war, which ended with a peace.
    How all of that is consistent with your claim that the Axis existed since 1937?
    Compare it with the events that happened after Pearl Harbor. Immediately after teh attack of Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared a war on the US, because there was a true military alliance between Germany and Japan. That is what the word "Alliance" mean.
    It is strange that I have to explain to you so simple things. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    Irrelevant. WW2 started on Sep 1, 1939. That's what vast majority of RS is saying. The rest is just your speculation. Marcelus (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
    I am not sure if this source is RS, but it says the term "World War II" was introduced by Roosevelt in 1941.
    Yes, modern historians agree that WWII started on September 1, 1939. However, in 1939 people didn't know the Phony war or a conflict in East Asia are the parts of a future WWII.
    The rest of my post contains no speculations, it contains only historical facts. Do you deny that in 1939, all future Axis members except Germany were neutral? Do you deny the fact that in the first half of 1939, during the Triple Alliance negotiations, Romania was considered (by USSR, UK and France) as one of potential victims of German aggression? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
    I think we can close this topic on the conclusion that, according to RS, WW2 began on September 1, 1939, and that is relevant to us. Marcelus (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
    I think that we both (as well as everybody on this talk page) agree that WWII started on 1st of September, 1939.
    However, I cannot understand how can it help us to resolve the dispute. How dose it confirm your thesis that the USSR became the Ally by signing a bilateral technical agreement with Britain? Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • No, we should not name any of these dates. Yes, we might say "in June", but then we must add de facto because one needs to conclude some formal mutual agreements to became an ally de juro. Anglo-Soviet Agreement was only one of them. That was a process. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • July. It is important to make the difference between "joining the allies" or waging war against Germany. As such, the Signing of The Anglo-Soviet agreement is the day the Soviet Union joins the allies, the day Operation Barbarossa begins is the day the Soviet Union turns against Germany. There's a difference; If Country A waged a war with Coalition B, Country C could declare war on Country A without thereby joining Coalition B. As such, with this specific formulation, it is clear that the SU did not automatically join the Allies when being attacked by Germany.CarolingianCitizen (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    That must be based on some sources. What sources say that? (A hint: the sources ##1-3 in the list below do not say that). Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    On second thought, the Anglo-Soviet Agreement is not the best solution after all. That being said, the start of Operation Barbarrossa certainly isnt either, which is what I wanted to state in the first place earlier. Two solutions I've seen so far, "the Soviet Union joins the allies in fighting the Nazis" as an event or "in June" as a (vague) date, strike me as the best ways ro resolve this. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
    I think the problem is the wording "joined the Allies" followed by a specific date, which is simply too neat for a complicated process. What would you think about, "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, fought on the side of the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 and formally joined the Allies soon after." The source I gave below shows that the Anglo-Soviet agreement was a formal alliance with the UK and its dominions. However, there was a later separate agreement with Poland. Also we can change the info box for the Soviet Union to read "at war with Germany from June 1941", Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
    @Aemilius Adolphin: I completely agree with yours I think the problem is the wording "joined the Allies" followed by a specific date. However, the current infobox neither say nor infer the date the Big Three member "joined the Allies". It is intuitively clear that the dates and events in the infobox refer to the start of de facto and de iure state of was between the Big Three members and at least of the Axis member. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: There was never a written, tripartite agreement officially establishing an alliance between the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. Their alliance was formed de facto immediately after the German invasion, through the three superpowers joining the battle against Germany and commencing attempts at military co-ordination, as well as mutual assistance in information and matériel. In the absence of such a document, the article can only offer the date of 1 January 1942, when the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China signed the document known as the Declaration by United Nations, with 22 more nations, including the Soviet Union, adding their repesentatives' signatures the next days. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
    It's impossible, WP:RS are using the term Allies for the period of an entire WW2. Marcelus (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Before January 1942, they refer to the Big Three members as de facto allies. At least, that is what majority WP:RS say. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • A significant number of references to "the Allies" in historical texts, and we're talking about wiki-reliable texts, of course, are unfortunately retroactive appellations, i.e. the author might be referring to the eventual members of the Alliance as members of the Alliance, i.e. "allies", even for the period of time when they provenly were not in it. See, in this context, an accurate exception pointed out in the remark above by Paul Siebert. -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
    @Paul Siebert, @The Gnome: Unfortunately, this is not true. First of all, even if the RS would use the term retroactively it is not relevant, because we use the terminology accepted in the scientific literature and not the one used historically. However, it is not relevant because the term "Allies" to describe the powers fighting Germany was already in use since 1939. There are many examples, such as the American Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies founded in 1940. The term Allies had been in use since World War 1, and in 1939 it was revived and took on a new meaning.
    The Grand Alliance and the Allies are not the same thing, I would ask you not to confuse the two terms. What's more out of the two, it was the term "Grand Alliance" that was coined after the war by Winston Churchill.
    The Big Three is a term for the three biggest Allied powers, and it is also not synonymous with the term "Allies." Marcelus (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Nowhere did I use, or even mention, the term "Grand Alliance", so it is not possible for me to be confused on it. What I wrote, and re-iterated further down below, in the section titled "Proposal for compromise, straw poll", stands in full. Find us a written text whereupon the Big Three establish the Allied camp and you have a winner. As to the choice you offer between "scientific literature" and "historical [use]", that too is null and void: Historical texts considered reliable by Wikipedia do fall for the error I pointed out. Fortunately, the majority of reliable, historical texts, as well as the better ones, avoid the error. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The Big Three did not form the "Allies" because the Allies already existed at the time of the Big Three's establishment. Marcelus (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The phrase "the Allies existed" does not mean anything. The nations of the Alliance existed, yes. The Alliance itself was never de jure established, not beyond the written documents already offered here - which have little to do with the dates bandied about. Operation Barbarossa did not automatically place the USSR in the Allied camp; America was not an Ally until Germany declared war on the United States; and so on. The British, the Americans, and the Soviets became Allies de facto which, therefore, makes this a historical development demanding care and exactitude in its presentation. No short cuts, no mangling for the sake of "having something in the infobox", no inaccuracies are permitted. This is an issue of the utmost importance. -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The phrase "the Allies existed" is very much meaningful, it means that powers that were fighting Nazi Germany were calling that themselves already in 1939, and that's how modern histriography are calling them today (which is the most important for us). Other countries later joined the group, but the group itself was already established. Marcelus (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Let’s keep in mind it’s chiefly about what sources call them today. For example, in 1939 few thought they were in a world war, but now we all know they were. Similarly, in early June 1941 few expected the Soviets to switch to the Allies, but now we all know they were going to. Yes, we may identify a single date or a series of events that brought a state into the Allies, but let’s remember we are viewing this all through the lens of history sources, and not of the historical actors.  —Michael Z. 15:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Good point. Yours "in 1939 few thought they were in a world war, but now we all know they were" is exactly what Reynolds says. However, the very same author says that both the US and USSR stayed apart from the conflict that started in 1939. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • June Or alternatively rephrase to clarify the stages of a process. There is clearly no single, simple date when USSR 'signed up' - but the invasion is the de facto moment when USSR's interests and actions aligned with those of US & UK - the gradual formalisation and practical implementation of that alignment is an extended process, but there can be no doubt what initiated it. No source seems to support any other date as other than a part of the process. Pincrete (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This RfC was incorrectly formulated

WP:RFCBRIEF says that the RfC statement should be neutral and brief. The statement we are discussing is neither neutral nor brief. The user who initiated this RfC clearly states the PoV they are advocating. Furthermore, it contains a factually incorrect sentences. Thus, it says:

"An alternative date is the signing of the Anglo-Soviet agreement."

However, there is no evidence that this POV is expressed by reliable sources. This RSN discussion is leaning to a conclusion that the source cited in this RfC does not support the claim that USSR joined the Allies in July. I propose to speedy close this RfC as poorly formulated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The question: "Should the date the Soviet Union joined the Allies be changed to July 1941. Alternatively, should it be changed to June-July 1941?" is the neutral question. Underneath it I have given a separate personal statement. I am allowed to do this. There is no need to try to shut down discussion. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but before starting the RfC, you should have to make sure your sources support the option 2. In reality, they are not, so you de facto propose us to violate our policy. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about giving both dates followed by a footnote explaining that "sources differ"? I find arguments of both sides summarized above compelling. The readers may do so as well. (The only question is whether both viewpoints are equally DUE in sources). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus, sourced do not differ. The sources presented by AA do not say that USSR became the Ally on July 12, 1941. That is the conclusion drawn by AA from sources that do not explicitly say that. That was confirmed in the RSN discussion that I initiated few hours before AA started this RfC. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Common sense, I'd indeed expect most sources to use the June date. So no sources at all support the July version? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
So far, the [1] discussion unanimously concluded that the third source doesn't support this claim.
I am sure if someone starts the RSN discussions about other two sources, the conclusion will be the same, but I don't think we need that forum shopping. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A solution

This is a solution: the footnotes show the date when each member of the Big Three de facto joined the war. To avoid ambiguity, I just fixed the wording to make that fact more clear. I believe that resolved the dispute: we may endlessly argue when exactly the UK, the US or the USSR became the Allied de iure, but the moment they de facto joined the war is indisputable and non-controversial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't make any changes to this aspect of the article or infobox while the matter is still under discussion. A consensus needs to be reached. That said, I think your proposal has merit. One problem is that the Soviet Union was at war when they invaded Poland and Finland. For the Soviet Union, it would be better to say "at war with Germany since June 1941". The lead also should be changed to: "The Soviet Union joined the allies after it was invaded by Germany in June 1941 and signed the Angl-Soviet agreement in July." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the infobox concept is as follows: for the Big Three, the official start of belligerence is shown. For Britain it is September 1939 (the month it declared a war on Germany), for the US it is Dec 1941 (the moth when they declared a war on Japan and Germany), and for the Soviet Union it is the month when the war started between it and Germany. Everything is logical, I just specified the wording without changing the concept.
WRT "shouldn't make any changes", as I explained it to you, before starting your RfC, you should have to make sure reliable sources support your idea. You de facto propose other users to chose between the non-controversial statement found in many reliable sources and your own idea, which is not found even in the sources selected by you.
WRT " One problem is that the Soviet Union was at war when they invaded Poland and Finland." At war with whom? With a future Axis member (Finland)? Remember, Finland had never been the Ally before 1944. With regard to Poland, no war was declared on/by the USSR as a result of invasion of Poland. Meanwhile, the three dates listed in the infobox are the months the members of the Big Three officially declared a war on Nazi Germany.
Therefore "one problem" you are talking about is not a problem at all. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
WRT " it would be better to say "at war with Germany since June 1941"" No. It was at war with the whole European Axis (including Finland and except Bulgaria), and de facto even with Spain. Some of the Axis powers (e.g. Romania and Hungary) waged a war almost exclusively against USSR. Actually, you are too focused on Britain, and you forgot that Romania alone deployed more troops on the Eastern Front than Britain had in North Africa.
WRT "The lead also should be changed to: "The Soviet Union joined the allies after it was invaded by Germany in June 1941 and signed the Angl-Soviet agreement in July."" What is the reason for focusing on the Molotov-Cripps declaration? Actually, RSs do not pay so much attention to it. It was by no means an alliance, and after USSR (and then the US) joined the war, Britain stopped to play a central role in it. Majority sources describe formation of the Grand Alliance not as a process of joining the alliance with Britain by the USSR and, later, the US, but as a de novo formation of a totally new alliance. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The Soviet Union was at war with Poland. It invaded Poland in 1939 and Poland never surrendered. The Polish government in exile was the officially recognised Polish Government. It only reached limited agreements with the Soviet Union in July and August 1941 at Churchill's insistence. Why the focus on the Anglo-Soviet agreement? I've explained it above as have several others. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Did Poland declare a war on the USSR? If yes, when did the state of war between these two powers ceased? I assume it ceased, because it is hard to imagine that Polish government in exile was still at war with the USSR after June 1941.
Please, show me sources saying when Poland declared a war on the USSR, and when they signed a peace after Barbarossa started. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
WRT your explanations, they are totally unsatisfactory, and they are not based on what RS say. In addition, keeping in mind that the RSN discussion concluded the source #3 does not support your idea, it should be removed from the list. Actually the same arguments are equally applicable to other two, so it would be correct to remove them from the list too. I can ask the question at the RSN about these two sources, but if I do that, I'll look like an idiot: the users at RSN may conclude I really believe in what I am asking. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
"It only reached limited agreements with the Soviet Union in July and August 1941 at Churchill's insistence. " As far as I know, the position of Soviet government was that Polish state ceased to exist in September 1939, so one of the reasons why the agreement with "London Poles" was hard to achieve was that Soviet government didn't recognise "London Poles" as a legitimate government of Poland. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
On 1 September 1939, the USSR took aggressive action against Poland in agreement with Germany, losing its status as a neutral state. On 17 September it undertook open aggression against Poland, entering its territory. On 30 July 1941, diplomatic relations between Poland and the USSR were restored and normalised, and the USSR cancelled previous agreements with Germany, both countries declaring a joint struggle against Nazi Germany. From this point on, the Soviets recognised the Polish government in exile as the only legitimate government. Marcelus (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
On 1 September 1939, the USSR took NO aggressive actions (an no actions whatsoever). On September 1, even Britain hadn't joined the war yet: the UK declared a war later.
WRT the Polish government, the question is when and by whom a war was declared on the USSR in 1939 (except Finland, which had never been the Ally).
For the UK and US, the infobox shows the month they officially entered the war on the Allied side. What is the reason to change the rules for the USSR? I got no adequate answer so far. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
On 1 September, the USSR began broadcasting navigation signals to the German air force, that's an agressive action and open support for German invaders. Subsequently, Soviet troops entered Polish territory militarily, openly assuming the role of aggressor. The USSR entered the Second World War on 17 September 1939. Official declarations of war are irrelevant because they are a diplomatic courtesy, very rarely used. I don't understand your fixation on them. You need to answer why Poland would have to declare war on the Soviet Union? Why do you expect this from a victim of aggression? Marcelus (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Broadcasting the word "Minsk" is an aggressive action? Are you serious?
"Subsequently, Soviet troops entered Polish territory militarily, openly assuming the role of aggressor." Incorrect. It was a de facto aggression, and it is currently described as such, but the USSR never openly assumed the role of an aggressor (its stance was that the Polish state ostensibly ceased to exist). Importantly, Britain and France never declared a war on the USSR, and they convinced Poland not to do that either. The reason was that they did not want provoke the Soviet Union to become a true ally of Germany. That means they didn't consider USSR as a German ally. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Guiding the military aircraft of a third country is an aggressive action. The fact that the Soviet Union did not assume the role of aggressor is irrelevant. Likewise, the fact that Poland did not declare war on the Soviets (I repeat again, the victim of aggression does not have to declare war on the aggressor) is also irrelevant. In general, political declarations, dictated by political interests, often aimed at concealing true intentions and misrepresenting facts, are irrelevant.
What matters to us is what actually happened. Marcelus (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Look, you are changing your arguments on fly.
  • on 13:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC) you write: "Soviet troops entered Polish territory militarily, openly assuming the role of aggressor"
  • on 14:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC) you claimed that "The fact that the Soviet Union did not assume the role of aggressor is irrelevant. "
In other words, you initially claimed that the USSR openly assumed the role of aggressor, and almost immediately after that you claim that it didn't. If you so easily change your own argumentation, then I refuse to accept it seriously too.
WRT "What matters to us is what actually happened" No. You are free to write and publish your own monograph in the history of WWII, where you may express your own views. Here, on Wikipedia pages, the only thing that matters is what scholars think on that matter. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
My first comment referred to the fact that the USSR objectively became the aggressor. Not only in the colloquial sense of the word, but also in the legal sense of the word, their actions fulfilled the definition of an aggressor (most notably the Convention on the Definition of Assault, signed on 3 July 1933, but not only).
It is true that the Soviets never called themselves that, I never denied it. But it is irrelevant to us what Soviet propaganda claimed. I apologise for the imprecise wording. Marcelus (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Noone argues that the USSR was a de facto aggressor. The question is if it was a German ally, and if it was considered as such by France and UK.
Not only the Soviets never called themselves as an aggressor, the Western Allies didn't call it as such. The list of sources that ostensibly support your POV includes Gorodetsky. But have you bothered to read him? Gorodetsky says that in 1939-41:
""The Soviet Union," it was often repeated in 1939-41, "is a potential enemy rather than a potential ally.""
"The Russians, obsessed by the idea of a German-British reconciliation, persisted in seeking balanced relations with both Britain and Germany throughout 1939-41"
In other words, Gorodetsky clearly says that both UK and USSR saw themselves as potential enemies, they both feared that their vis-a-vis might become the German ally. That is totally inconsistent with what you say. Gorodetsly's views directly contradict to what you say. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
RS confirm that the USSR carried out the aggression against Poland in agreement with Germany in 1939. This is relevant. You can add the remaining political context in the article, there is no objection to it. Marcelus (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I still cannot understand what relation does it have to the subject of the discussion. I argue that the formation of the Allies was a gradual process, but this alliance was forming not by joining Britain: a common approach is that each major Allied power joined the war first, and only after that the multilateral alliance was formalized. That is true for the US, for ROC, for the USSR. Why should we reject this approach specifically for the USSR? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
USSR entered war in Sep 1939. That's why the version proposed by you is unacceptable. Marcelus (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
WRT "broadcasting", I found the source. It is the archival document АВП СССР, ф. 06, оп. 1, п. 7, д. 74. The text can be found here. The original text (which can be easily translated) says:
"4. Хильгер просил также передать Вам просьбу начальника генштаба германских военно-воздушных сил (прилагается) {{***** He публикуется. В ней речь шла о просьбе, чтобы радиостанция в Минске в свободное от передачи время передавала для срочных воздухоплавательных опытов непрерывную линию с вкрапленными позывными знаками: «Рихард Вильгельм 1.0», а кроме того, во время передачи своей программы по возможности часто слово «Минск». Из резолюции В. М. Молотова на документе следует, что было дано согласие передавать только слово «Минск»."
That request was made on 1th pf September, in 11:00.
From the same document, you can see that Germany officially notified Soviet government about the beginning of the war with Poland in 13:00.
All of that does not look like allied relationships. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
This document confirms the fact of military cooperation in the aggression against Poland as early as 1 September. Marcelus (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
If you think that broadcasting of the word "Minsk" is a military activity, then how do you describe a massive counter-attack of the future Axis member that started on August and ended with a cease fire agreement only on 15th of September? Paul Siebert (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Please try to stay on topic. Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Why is it irrelevant? You argue that the Axis existed since 1936. If that was the case, why do you emphasize one instance of de facto hostilities and disregard another instance of much more intense (in terms of the losses sustained by both parties) hostilities?
If the Axis existed by Sept 1939, then my argument is totally relevant. It is irrelevant only if we agree that there was no military alliance between Japan and Germany in 1939. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The answer is: WP:RS Marcelus (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:RS do not say the USSR became the Ally as a result of signing the Molotov-Cripps agreement. The conclusions made during the RSN discussion about Woodward are equally applicable to other two sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


Can users please read wp:or and wp:v sources must explicitly say something. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.
And, I also would like to point everybody's attention at the following.
We are actually discussing two different ideas:
1. USSR was a separate case because of its actions against Poland.
2. The UK was a central Allied power, and a power may be considered an Ally only after it signed an alliance with the UK.
These two concepts are totally independent, and the latter is not supported by reliable sources at all. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with your first point. Your second point mixes up two things. a) Yes, the UK was the main Allied power before the Soviet Union joined the Allies. b) No one is saying that a power must sign an Alliance with the UK to be considered an ally. In this case, however, the Anglo-Soviet Agreement marked the date the Soviet Union officially joined the Allies (given that the UK consulted with the Dominions before signng it). There was no significant cooperation between the UK and the Soviets against Germany before the Anglo-Soviet agreement. After the Agreement there was a joint military operation in Iran and the Soviet Union attended the Second Inter-Allied War Conference.
As I said before, I would support a compromise:
1) In the info box under the Big Three I would support the wording:
United Kingdom (at war with Germany from Sep 1939)
Soviet Union (at war with Germany from June 1941)
United States (at war with Axis from December 1941)
2) In the lead I would support the wording: "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 and the signing of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement in July."
Looking at the responses to the specific questions posed in the RfC, this statement would seem to cover the concerns of all parties. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
No. That is factually incorrect. Please, read sources before making your proposals.
On Sept 1939, Britain declared a war on Germany only, because no Axis existed by that time.
On June 1941, the USSR was officially at war with the whole Axis except Japan and Bulgaria, which included Romania, Hungary, Finland, Croatia, Slovakia, Germany and Italy.
On Dec 1941 the US joined the war, and they were officially at war with the whole Axis except Finland and, probably (I have to check it) some small European Axis members.
Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infpbox must be succinct: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
Therefore, the version that you reverted ("at war since (or from) ...") better serves the infobox goals and, in contrast to your proposal, it contains no factual errors. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
WRT our #2, I object to usage of the dates of signing any bilateral agreements as the starting date for Allied/Axis membership. We should use either war declaration date or (which is less preferable) the date of signing/joining multilateral agreements (e.g. the Declaration of the United Nations). Paul Siebert (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Please stop repeating false information that Axis didn't exist in 1939, it was created in 1936. Marcelus (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
If the Axis existed since 1936, then the USSR was de facto at war with the Axis since 1939. That directly follows from your speculations. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Just your speculations. Again: WP:RS Marcelus (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
That the USSR was de facto at war with Japan is not my speculation, it is a fact.
That Japan was a signatory of Anti-Comintern pact is also a fact.
That Battle of Khalkhin Gol ended in 15th of September, 1939 is also a fact.
Where do you see any speculation here?
And why all of that is irrelevant?
By making unsubstantiated claims that your opponent's view are irrelevant, you are by no means making your point more valid. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no time, nor place for historical dispute, the discussion is already very long; no WP:RS indicates that because of the conflict with Japan Soviet Union was part of the Allies. Unless you are able to prove otherwise, bringing up Khalkhin Gol again will be considered as WP:EXHAUST by me. Marcelus (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
... and majority RS do not indicate that because of the conflict with Poland the Soviet Union was part of the Axis. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
States of war exist between states, not necessarily alliances.  —Michael Z. 23:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but what relation does it have to this discussion? Please, explain. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Additional source for 12 July date

A couple of editors have asked for more reliable sources to support a 12 July 1941 date for the Soviet Union joining the allies. This one quotes Churchill as fixing the Anglo-Soviet agreement as the date the Soviets joined the Allies. "As the Soviet Union persisted in opposing the German forces and the anticipated attack on Britain failed to materialise, the press tentatively began to posit Russia as an ally. This frame was consolidated with the 12 July signing of the Anglo-Russian War Pact and Churchill’s confirmation that ‘‘IT IS, OF COURSE, AN ALLIANCE AND THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE ARE NOW OUR ALLIES’’ (Daily Mirror, July 16, 1941). The press embraced the new title for the USSR and shifted the focus from exploiting the situation for Britain’s benefit to helping ‘‘our Ally’’." Claire Knight, "The Making of the Soviet Ally in the British Wartime Popular Press." p. 483. It's available through the Wikipedia Library, but I couldn't make the link work.

(Marcelus , please sign your above post.) This is the only source so far. And it is not an additional source, for other three sources cited here do not support your claim.
And this is a quote from a primary source. The author (Knight) is not discussing the Alliance, she is discussing a perception of the USSR in a British popular press. Knight seems to express no opinion on the subject, she just quotes Churchill. We are not allowed to use primary sources for drawing conclusions from them. If you disagree, go to WP:RSN and ask.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Claire Knight is a reliable secondary source. Secondary sources use and quote primary sources. That's what makes them secondary sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Did you read the RSN discussion? All what had been said there is equally applicable to Knight. When a scholar quotes a primary source, it does not necessarily mean they endorse it. All what we can write based on Knight is that Churchill called the Soviet Union "the Ally" on 12th of July. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
This source obviously supports the statement that the Anglo-Soviet agreement was an alliance and that it made the UK and the Soviet Union officially allies. Did you read the whole article I linked or just the one quote I extracted? Please read the whole article. Here is another quote from it: "For nearly four years prior to the onset of the Cold War, the Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-USSR) was fêted wholeheartedly by the British popular press. This approbation was an expression of enthusiasm not for Communism, but for a military partner allied under the Anglo-Soviet Agreement of 1941-45." (Op Cit p. 476) The author in a reliable secondary source is clearly stating as a fact that the Soviet Union became an ally of the UK under the Anglo-Soviet Agreement. This is not surpising given that Churchill said so himself (p. 483). Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Here is the link again for everyone's convenience. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
AA, that is becoming disruptive. The RSN discussion came to an unanimous conclusion that this source cannot be used for that purpose. And yours "This source obviously supports the statement that the Anglo-Soviet agreement was an alliance and that it made the UK and the Soviet Union officially allies" is a form of an utter disrespect to the opinion of other users.
Please, stop it. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no RSN dicussion about this source. Your link points to an entirely different source and an entirely different set of questions which you made up yourself. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't your major idea that:
  • The USSR joined the Allies not as a result of Barbarossa, but as a result of signining a declaration by Molotov and Cripps,
  • the Soviet Union should be considered the Ally NOT at the moment it declared a war on Germany and its allies, it was the the Anglo-Soviet Agreement which marked the date when the Soviet Union officially joined the Allies?
That is exactly what I asked.
And the source is not "entirely different", it is the source from your list (#3) Paul Siebert (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't change info box until RfC is completed

I have reverted the info box to the stable version at the time the RfC began. Please don't change it until consensus is reached. If you think you can improve it, please discuss it here and seek consensus. Also please confine the discussions here to the questions posed in the RfC. Thank you.

@Aemilius Adolphin: First, don't forget to sigh your posts.
Second, our guidelines say: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You reverted the wording that is an improvement: it is less ambiguous, but the dates and links were not affected. The subject of the RfC is not about the concrete wording, but about the core idea: instead of the date of war declaration (which currently is the common principle for all three major Allies), you proposed to change the principle specifically for the USSR. Only this idea is the subject of the RfC. Therefore, I don't see what prevents us from working on other aspects. The reason for your revert is not legitimate. Please, self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, I reverted to the stable version which existed prior to the RfC. It is only your opinion that the wording added without consensus is an improvement. 2 editors objected to it. The correct procedure was for you to first canvas your idea for an improvement on the talk page and seek consensus for it. There is obviously no consensus for it yet, but one might emerge if you let the discussion take its course. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
wp:brd and WP:ONUS are clear, we wait until there is wp:consneus for any change. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise, straw poll

Could interested editors please indicate whether they support the following suggestions for a compromise. I suggested it to one or two editors above but it seems to have got lost in discussion over marginal issues.

Info box

Under the big three, we change the text:

United Kingdom: Current text states "Sep 1939". Change to: "at war with Germany from Sep 1939"

Soviet Union: Current text states: "June 1941." Change to: "at war with Germany from Jun 1941"

United States: Current text states: "Dec 1941". Change to "at war with Axis from Dec 1941"

Footnotes can be used to clarify this if necessary (as is the case with other Allies listed in the info box).

Lead

The relevant sentence in the lead is: "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies in June 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union."

I propose we change this to: "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, fought on the side of the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, and formalised the alliance in the following months."

Please indicate Yes or No if you agree to these proposed changes. Please give a one line statement if you wish to clarify. Please do not engage in a lengthy discussion of side issues. There is room for that above. Please do not try to bludgeon the discussion. Thank you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this proposition Marcelus (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree. How about something like “which initially had an understanding with Germany to divide up Eastern Europe”?  —Michael Z. 00:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
No.
The proposed infobox is factually incorrect. The USSR was at war not with Germany, but with "The Axis" (except Japan). In particular, it was at war with some states (Romania, Hungary, Finland), which were fighting almost exclusively with the USSR.
Furthermore, "United Kingdom: at war with Germany from Sep 1939" is also misleading, because it creates a false impression that the UK never fought against Japan. In general, this proposal goes against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (too many details, too confusing and too inaccurate). Interestingly, I already explained that above.
The uncontroversial version is the one you reverted. And that version was in agreement with MOS. It should be:
  • "United Kingdom: at war from Sep 1939" (later, the UK would declare a war on Italy, Japan etc, but that belongs to the article, not the infobox)
  • "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941" (the USSR didn't declare a war on Japan until Aug 1945, but that is explained in teh article)
  • "United States: at war from Dec 1941" (in this case "with the Axis" is redundant).
Next, "fought on the side of the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, and formalised the alliance in the following months" is too vague in non-concrete. Actually all future Allies "formalised their alliance in the following months", specifically, by signing the Declaration of the United Nations. A proposed lede presents the USSR as some exceptional case, which is incorrect.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Extended discussion
Actually, the most precise wording would be not "fought on the side of the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, and formalised the alliance in the following months", but just "since June 1941 bore the major brunt of the war against the European Axis". There is no need to mention any formal agreement with Britain at all, for 80% of all hostilities in the European theater had moved to the Eastern Front after 22th of June. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
As I explained to you earlier, the statement that the Soviet Union was at war from Dec 1941 is untrue, because the Soviet Union entered the war in September 1939. The fact that you keep repeating this untrue information leads one to believe that you are deliberately seeking to distort historical facts. I ask you to stop such actions. Marcelus (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus: The words " The fact that you keep repeating this untrue information leads one to believe that you are deliberately seeking to distort historical facts" is a personal attack. Please, apologize and refrain from such attacks in future.
You blamed me of distorting historical facts, and that is a serious accusation. Serious accusations require serious evidence. I am waiting from you for a serious evidences that the USSR was considered as a belligerent by the Allies since September 1939. Please, keep in mind that your evidences mush explicitly debunk the evidences shown below, for the claim that I am making is based on what reliable sources say, including these:
  • "After Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, Stalin abandoned his attitude of pro-Axis neutrality and joined the Allies" (Jan T. Gross. A Note on the Nature of Soviet Totalitarianism. Soviet Studies, Jul., 1982, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Jul., 1982), pp. 367-376. [2])
The source clearly says that the USSR was neutral (although pro-Axis) before 1941.
  • "It is interesting to note that Graff Werner von Schulenburg, the German Ambassador in Moscow, regretfully informed his government in early 1940 that the Soviet Union was genuinely determined "to cling to neutrality [...] and avoid as much as possible anything that might involve it in a conflict with the Western Powers""
"The fall of France bolstered rather than altered the British concept. True, the loss of their allies on the Continent momentarily inspired the British to close ranks with the Russians. But the measures taken were too little and too late." (Gabriel Gorodetsky. The Impact of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact on the Course of Soviet Foreign Policy. Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique , Jan. - Mar., 1990, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1990), pp. 27-41. [3])
The author says that the German official conceded that the USSR was neutral. The same author speak about rapprochement between the USSR and Britain after 1940. How could it be possible if the USSR were "at war"?
  • "The Soviet Union formally declared its neutrality on 17 September 1939, the same day that Soviet armed forces entered eastern Poland." (Geoffrey Roberts. Stalin, the Pact with Nazi Germany, and the Origins of Postwar Soviet Diplomatic Historiography. Journal of Cold War Studies, Fall 2002, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Fall 2002), pp. 93-103. [4])
  • " The underlying message seemed to be that Moscow had acted to protect its own interests, was distancing itself from Berlin, and was concerned not to become involved in any wider conflict. One scholar [Gorodetsky] has written that the Soviets, in the ensuing days and weeks, 'resorted to strenuous efforts to placate Berlin and consolidate their own neutrality' '""
"British policy towards Soviet Russia did lurch and waver over ensuing months, notably during the Winter War. It is true, for example, that the British Government was much closer to declaring war on the Soviet Union during the Finnish campaign some four months later than it was over the Soviet invasion of Poland." (Keith Sword. British Reactions to the Soviet Occupation of Eastern Poland in September 1939. The Slavonic and East European Review , Jan., 1991, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 81-101. [5])
A note. I never questioned the fact that the USSR was at war with Finland in 1939-40, and that Britain seriously considered to declare a war on the USSR. However, I do not understand how the war with a future Axis member (Finland) fits this discussion.
  • "Even before Soviet entry into the war the British had hinted at or proposed some kind of general settlement. For example, in October 1940 London had proposed an agreement that in return for the USSR’s benevolent neutrality there would be consultations on the postwar settlement, de facto recognition of Russian territorial acquisitions in Eastern Europe and British economic assistance to Soviet defence preparations" (Geoffrey Roberts. Ideology, calculation, and improvisation: spheres of influence and Soviet foreign policy 1939–1945. Review of International Studies (1999), 25, 655–673. [6]
This author clearly says that the 1940 proposal was made by Britain before Soviet entry into the war.
  • You also may be interested to read this book, at least the title.
  • "In Britain at least, it is customary to say that the Second World War began in September I939. Yet what actually began then was a limited European war, confined to Britain, France, Germany and, briefly, Poland. Since the mid-I930s. British military planners had worked with the nightmare worst-case assumption of a three-enemy war-against Germany, Italy and Japan-but the latter two powers remained neutral, albeit malevolent, in September I939. On the sidelines too were the Soviet Union, which signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in August, and the United States, whose stance was one of neutrality tilted benevolently towards the Allies.. " (David Reynolds. 1940: Fulcrum of the Twentieth Century? International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) , Apr., 1990, Vol. 66, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 325-350. [7])
Therefore, 'everything what I said during our previous discussion was based on high quality scholarly sources. These sources confirm that:
  • the USSR entered the war in 1941.
  • the USSR was considered neutral by all parties of the 1939-41 conflict (leaving the Soviet-Finnish war beyond the scope).
Therefore, when you accused me of deliberate spreading false facts, those accusations were clearly wrong. I DO NOT think you deliberately throw false accusations: most likely they were caused not by your bad faith, but by your ignorance. However, now you have a chance to read the sources, educate yourself and stop throwing unsubstantiated claims. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Serhii Plokhy 2021, “The Call of Blood,” in The Frontline, pp 131–32:
. . . Joseph Stalin summoned his military commanders to the Kremlin. On the agenda was Soviet entry into the war, which had already become global. Among its declared participants were Germany, Poland, Britain, France, and South Africa.
. . .
On 5 September Viacheslav Molotov, chairman of the USSR Council of People’s Commissars and people’s commissar for international relations, had responded evasively to the German appeal of two days earlier to send the Red Army into Poland, saying that the time was not yet ripe. Now, with the Germans advancing, the Poles retreating, and the British and French doing little more than formally declaring war, Stalin wanted his military brass to speed up preparations for hostilities. The partial mobilization of reserves ordered the previous day was already taking effect. Soviet forces would cross the Polish border and seize the USSR’s portion of war booty. But how to justify an act of open aggression against a neighboring state?
. . .
Stalin told his visitors that the Soviet Union would take advantage of the world conflict to help the capitalist countries exhaust one another. He shared none of the admiration lavished by earlier generations of revolutionaries on Poland, which he characterized as a fascist state that was oppressing fellow Ukrainians and Belarusians. “The annihilation of that state under current conditions would mean one less bourgeois fascist state to contend with!” asserted Stalin. “What harm would result from the rout of Poland if we were to extend the socialist system to new territories and populations?” he asked his visitors, according to Dimitrov’s diary.
. . .
This essay looks into the development of the ethnic justification of Soviet aggression against Poland on three levels: diplomatic, propagandistic, and popular. It examines how the theme of ethnic minorities developed in Soviet-German negotiations in the weeks leading up to Soviet entry into the war and the signing of the Soviet-German Boundary and Friendship Treaty of 28 September 1939; . . .
 —Michael Z. 18:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, one user (Marcelus) accused me of deliberate spreading false facts. I convincingly demonstrated that all facts that "I am spreading" were taken from reliable sources.
I never denied the fact that other POVs exist. The question is, however, that you haven't demonstrated that the POV advocated by you is a majority POV. Actually, I have a reason to suspect that POV is a minority view. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I know Plokhy as an expert in history of Ukraine. I have no information on whether he is considered as an expert in WWII in general. His essay was cited just two times, and I do not know if other scholars share Plokhy's views on 1939 events. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
First of all, why would I point to RS confirming that "USSR was considered as a belligerent by the Allies since September 1939" if the content you are trying to insert on Wikipedia is the claim that Soviet Union was at war from Jun 1941?
Ergo, the collection of sources you presented is of little value. Moreover, some of them are quoted dishonestly. For example, the first one you quoted, Jan T. Gross, states explicitly: In September 1939 the Soviet Union, bound by a treaty with Germany, occupied over 50% of the territory of Polish state. Most of the others clearly state the Soviet Union's complicity in the attack on Poland, the first act of WW2.
Moreover, researchers such as Dębski, Sławomir (2009). "The Strange Alliance. Soviet-German cooperation 1939-1941" [A strange alliance. Soviet-German cooperation 1939-1941]. IPN Bulletin. 12: 62. states: German-Soviet alliance relations became public after the Soviet aggression against Poland on September 17, 1939, symbolized by the joint victory parade organized on September 22, 1939 in the streets of Brest. The aggression against Poland was tantamount to the USSR's entry into World War II (translation and underlying by me).
Hoffmann, Joachim (1998). "The Soviet Union up to the Eve of the German Attack". Germany and the Second World War. p. 101.: Planning and execution of the Soviet operation altogether reveal that this was not some kind of ‘liberation campaign’ but a war of aggression, p. 103: If further proof were needed that the campaign in Poland was conducted by agreement between the two aggressors, this may be found in the military negotiations held in Moscow on 20 September 1939, p. 108-109: Stalin’s exculpation of Germany and attribution to Britain of sole responsibility for the unleashing of the Second World War could not, in the further course of events, be maintained in this one-sided and narrow form, but neither was it ever entirely abandoned (...) No mention, on the other hand, is made of the responsibility borne by the Soviet Union for the disaster which befell Europe, a responsibility stemming from the treaties concluded with Hitler, the extensive support given to Germany during the first phase of the war, and the execution of the secret protocols. Hoffmann clearly states the joint attack on Poland by the Soviets and Germans and blames them for unleashing WW2. He clearly indicates that the USSR entered the war in 1939.
I can also quote Chris Bellamy, who directly contradicts what you say: The Second World War was not a single conflict, but formed from a number of quite separate wars which fused as the world’s leading military and economic powers were drawn in. The first war, which began with Germany’s invasion of Poland (with Soviet approval) on 1 September 1939, was an old-fashioned ‘cabinet war’ for the European balance of power. The second war involved Germany’s ally, Italy, and was about Italian attempts to establish dominion in the Mediterranean and north Africa. The 1939–40 Soviet-Finnish war and the occupation of the Baltic States and Bessarabia in 1940 were also relatively conventional affairs, their purpose being to secure Leningrad, the Soviet Union’s second city, and other parts of the Soviet Union’s western frontier. The Soviet Union’s tightening grip on eastern Europe precipitated the third major war, the greatest and bloodiest, and the subject of this book (this is from his book Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War, 2007), alos: The Soviet Union in World War II is the story of several wars. When World War II started, the Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Nazi Germany in a relatively conventional European interstate war. Although the Germans did most of the fighting in Poland, the Soviet Union occupied the eastern part. ([8])
I think that's enough.
Moreover, none of the sources you quoted states that the Soviet Union did not enter World War II until June 22, 1941, some of them only states that it was attacked by Germany a that time (which is obviously true). Your ignoring of the Soviet aggression against Poland (and other states) is disturbing. Therefore, I ask you once again to stop doing so.
I DO NOT think you deliberately throw false accusations: most likely they were caused not by your bad faith, but by your ignorance. However, now you have a chance to read the sources, educate yourself and stop throwing unsubstantiated claims; please Wikipedia:Focus on content not contributor. Marcelus (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus: You accused me of dishonest behaviour. That is another personal attack. Please, stop. In addition, the way you conduct this discussion cast a doubt on your own intellectual integrity. Concretely:
  • Yes, Jan T. Gross, states explicitly: In September 1939 the Soviet Union, bound by a treaty with Germany, occupied over 50% of the territory of Polish state. But does this author say the USSR was at war? No. He doesn't say that explicitly, that is something that may be inferred from his words. In contrast, the quote provided by me explicitly described the status of the Soviet Union as "pro-Axis neutrality", and it explicitly states that this status was abandoned in June 1941. Therefore, the accusation of a lack of intellectual integrity should be directed at you, not at me.
  • Regarding your next source, the IPN is a questionable source. In addition, even that source does not explicitly support your claim. You conclusion can be inferred from that source, but that is exactly what our policy prohibits.
  • Where does Hoffman say that the USSR was considered non-neutral in 1939-40? Please, provide a quote.
  • Bellamy literally says that several conflicts merged together into a big was, but it is clear that this author believes that big war started not in 1939, but in 1941, after Germany attacked the USSR. It clearly says about "quite separate wars which fused as the world’s leading military and economic powers were drawn in". That is in agreement with what many other sources say. A simple example: Bellamy mentions the Soviet-Finnish war, but on which side the opponents were fighting? Was Finland an the Allied side or on the Axis side? Was the USSR on the Axis side of on the Allied side? The question is senseless, because there were no "Allied" or "Axis" side yet. Per Bellamy, a real world war started only after Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor (and one of my sources says the same).
Finally, it would be better if you followed your own advice: it was you why switched from a discussion of a contemt to a discussion of my humble person, and it is you who should stop it.
Your own sources do not support your claims. Please, recognize the obvious. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Ad 1. Your dishonest usage of sources comes from the constant ignoring of the fact that Soviet Union attacked Poland in 1939.
Ad 2. Sławomir Dębski is an expert on the matter, and he clearly states that Soviet Union entered WW2 in 1939, so saying: in addition, even that source does not explicitly support your claim. is baseless.
Ad 3. Where does Hoffman say that the USSR was considered non-neutral in 1939-40, why you need that information? We are talking if it's ok to say that Soviet Union entered the WW2 in 1941, as you suggest. Please stay on topic.
Ad 4. this author believes that big war started not in 1939, but in 1941, which is not surprising since the war of 1941 was bigger than the war of 1939. Still both were part of WW2.
Bellamy mentions the Soviet-Finnish war, but on which side the opponents were fighting?, on their own sides? Still it was a part of WW2, as RS claims. You can personally don't agree with it, but it's irrelevant.
The question is senseless, because there were no "Allied" or "Axis" side yet, please stop repeating this false statement. Axis existed since 1936, Allies at least since 1939.
To be clear. I object to your proposal that reads: "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941", on the basis that the Soviets entered the war in 1939, not in 1941. To claim the opposite is to ignore the series of wars and aggressive actions undertaken by the Soviet Union in the 1939-41 period that are part of WW2 history, which would violate WP:NOTCENSORED.
The sources I have provided prove this clearly and beyond doubt. I will not waste any more time proving a simple historical fact. Let me remind you of: WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BLUDGEON.
Furthermore, the claim that the Soviets entered WW2 in 1941 and not in 1939 is WP:FRINGE. Marcelus (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus: I haven't noticed your responce, sorry.
1. Your dishonest usage of sources ... I will not respond in the same vein (e.g. like "your stupid inability to read English" or something like that). Instead, I'll politely remind you that I never said the USSR didn't attack Poland in 1939. My claim is much more modest: I say that, despite the obvious and undeniable fact that the USSR invaded Poland in 1939, many (if not majority) RS say that the USSR claimed to be neutral, it was considered as neutral by all other states, and it is currently described as a neutral state by historians. That my conclusion is supported by RS, and I would say, it would be dishonest to say the sources do not say that.
We need to think how to correctly present all of that (the attack of Poland and the neutral status) in the article. Obviously, this complicated issue by no means fits into one infobox statement.
2. Again, I would be cautious about Polish sources writing about WWII. We should use them only if they are in agreement with the view of the international scholarly community. Anyway, you literally argue that "your sourceS are lousy, but mu source is good" Wikipedia is not working like that.
3. "We are talking if it's ok to say that Soviet Union entered the WW2 in 1941" That is a straw man argument. The whole dispute had started not because I wanted to add any information (I prefer the current version), but because you guys want to claim that the USSR was "at war" since 1939 (btw, what exactly does "at war" mean)?
4. " this author believes that big war started not in 1939, but in 1941, which is not surprising since the war of 1941" Actually, I quoted this author for two reasons. First, when I previously made the same claim, I was accused of OR or pushing fringe view. As I convincingly demonstrate, this claim was my no means my OR, and it is definitely not a fringe view. Second, this source describes the USSR "on a sideline of the conflict", along with the US. That is inconsistent with the claim that the USSR was "at war".
5. "Bellamy mentions the Soviet-Finnish war, but on which side the opponents were fighting?, on their own sides?" Good question. I know several serious authors (i need some time to find these sources, but only after I'll make sure you are ready for a serious and respectful discussion) who say that before 1941, the USSR was not on the Axis or the Allied side, but on the "Soviet" side. And this view seems pretty resonable, because such events as Battle of Khalkhin Gol, signing of Anti-Comintern pact, Spanish Civil war, Soviet-Finnish war, Soviet invasion of Poland etc do not fit into a primitive "Axis vs Allies" scheme. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I never said that your sources are lousy, and mine are good. Literally not once. You are just using them in dishonest way. None of them state that the Soviet Union entered WWII in 1941. None of them state that the Soviet Union was actually neutral in the 1939-1941 period (they only state that the SU was declaring itself as such, and that some powers accepted that declaration). This is untrue.
I would be cautious about Polish sources writing about WWII, why are you trying to exclude scholar because of his nationality? At least you are noticing him, and not ignoring him dishonestly as you were doing the whole time.
That is inconsistent with the claim that the USSR was "at war" since 1939; Are you trolling at this point? The version we are advocating is: Soviet Union: at war with Germany from Jun 1941. There is no mention of 1939. Unbelivable.
I know several serious authors (i need some time to find these sources, but only after I'll make sure you are ready for a serious and respectful discussion): WP:NOTAFORUM. I ask you the hundreth times, stay on topic! Marcelus (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
WRT "I never said that your sources are lousy, and mine are good" You presented the source Sławomir Dębski which allegedly says the opposite to what my sources say. Normally, that is supposed to be a start of a discussion on how could we reconcile these sources. However, you quoted Dębski as if debunked my sources. That literally means that Sławomir Dębski is a good source, whereas my sources are bad.
" why are you trying to exclude scholar because of his nationality" Had I ever proposed to exclude these sources? Please, show me where I did that. I said I would be cautious with those sources as the only source of information, especially when they say something that international sources do not.
"Are you trolling at this point?" Please, no personal attack. As I already wrote below, I see only problem with "Soviet Union: at war with Germany from Jun 1941." The problem is with Germany. That is factually incorrect: in June 1941 the USSR was at war not with Germany, but with the whole European Axis, including Italy, Finland, Hungary, Romania and satellites, who deployed up to million solders to the Eastern Front. That means that is not a minor detail: those countries alone were a formidable military force, and with some of then the USSR was at war, whereas other Allies weren't. And the second problem is Britain. If we write "Britain: at war with Germany from Sept 1939.", that implies that Britain (in contrast to the US) had never fought against Italy or Japan.
" I ask you the hundreth times, stay on topic! " Are you serious? That was an answer to your question. If you don't want to get my answers, why do you ask questions? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Dębski isn't saying anything opposite to your sources and I never said that. None of your sources is saying when Soviet Union entered WW2, Dębski is saying that rather clearly. They are complementary.
"Are you trolling at this point?" Please, no personal attack, it's not a personal attack. If you not trolling, you weren't following the discussion. Two things:
1. Contrary to what you said, none ever proposed version saying that Soviet Union was at war since 1939.
2. If your only issue with proposed version is Germany vs (European) Axis, why do you propose: "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941", and not "Soviet Union: at war with (European) Axis from Jun 1941". Just to cause a controversy? Marcelus (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
That is good that you started to discuss what, in your opinion, I am saying. It is big step towards consensus. In connection to that, I have one non-rhetoric questions:
- if noone ever proposed version saying that Soviet Union was at war since 1939, then what point the whole dispute is about?
WRT your #2, if you scroll up and read my 00:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC) post, you will see that I already explained my point. Briefly, if we write "Soviet Union: at war with European Axis from Jun 1941", then "Britain: at war with Germany from Sept 1939" would be incomplete and misleading (Britain was at war with Italy from 1940, and later with most Axis states; the proposed version creates a false impression it never declared a war on other Axis states). Therefore, we should write:
  • "Britain: at war with Germany from Sept 1939, with Italy from May 1949, with Japan from Dec 1941 etc"
  • "Soviet Union: at war with European Axis since 1941, with Japan since Aug 1945"
That would be totally against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which say: the less details the better.
Therefore, I am pretty satisfied with the current version, but, if you want more details, the maximal detailisation that we can afford is the version proposed by me. Yes, it is not perfect, but, at least, it is in agreement with what majority RS say. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
WRT "Dębski isn't saying anything opposite to your sources ... They are complementary." In other words, are you seriously claiming that the source saying that "The action X taken by the USSR in 1939 was tantamount to its entry to WWII" and the source saying "The USSR was neutral until 1941" are "complementary"? Is it possible that some state entered the WWII in 1939, but remained neutral until 1941? Are you familiar with the term cognitive dissonance?
In addition, for those who are obsessed with exact wording, let me point out that Dębski didn't say "The USSR entered the war", he said the Soviet action "was tantamount to the USSR's entry into World War II". Why did it write "tantamount"? You must agree that no author claims that the attack of Westerplatte was "was tantamount to German entry into World War II", they just say that Germany entered the war. And there is a serious reason for that.
Actually, you took Dębski's words and inferred from them that the USSR entered the war. But that is not what the author says. No OR, please. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no reason to include every Axis major power. One is enough, Germany in UK and USSR case, just for the sake of simplicity. But it's good you moved away from the false statement which was suggesting that USSR wasn't at war before 1939. We are indeed moving forward. I'm collapsing this thread, you can start new with your new proposition. Marcelus (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Having had a secret agreement to carve up Eastern Europe betrayed by invasion was exceptional.  —Michael Z. 13:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Pinging previous participants. Please provide an opinion on this compromise proposal if you wish. @Slatersteven, @Whizz40, @Mwinog2777, @Hawkeye7, @Nick-D, @My very best wishes, @CarolingianCitizen, @The Gnome, @Piotrus Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aemilius Adolphin Can you amend the proposal by clarifying (quoting) what is the original text to be changed? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Piotrus. Sorry about that. Done. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. The proposed new wording seems fine and arguably better. If anyone wants to tell me otherwise, do ping me and I'll review any counter arguments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Piotrus Sorry to bother you again.. I just put the previous wording of the info box. You might want to check this because one editor has objected to it. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Disagree with all proposals submitted so far. This discussion's purpose is to identify the date when each country that fought with the Allies in WW2 joined that alliance. This is a problematic and complex quest, yet we seem to be trying to have some clear, concise, and simple notation of time. There isn't any such!
Take, for instance, the issue of the Soviet Union: On 17 September 1939, the USSR attacked and invaded Poland and occupied an eastern region of that country, in accordance with the German-Soviet non-aggression pact. Does that mean that the USSR entered World War Two on that date? It does not. (It did not even officially declare itself at war, though that's a technical detail.) The Soviets began fighting the Germans as soon as they were invaded, but, again, this does not mean they de facto joined the Allies; and which "Allies"? The U.S. was not at war with anyone at the time. Going forward to identify when all the three major, Allied superpowers formed their alliance, one cannot identify one single document establishing the alliance's formulation.
We only have the well known United Nations Declaration. Still looking for one single date? The Declaration was signed by the U.S., the U.K., the U.S.R.R., and China on 1 January 1942, in short form. Dare we say the Allied camp had not formed before that date, when the fighting was intense in almost every theatre? Dare we ignore the fact that the Declaration was signed the next day by two dozen more countries? And that it went on getting signed by others continuously until 1945?
I suggest a modest and careful and accurate approach to this issue, whereby we list for each country the details of its involvement in the main text. Let's avoid the unavoidable, Procrustian mangle of historical facts that the infobox format necessitates. And I like infoboxes. -The Gnome (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Extended discussion
1. It is not true that the Soviet Union did not enter World War 2 on September 17, 1939.
2. The Allies is not a term for the alliance of the UK, US and USSR (the so-called Grand Alliance); only a term for the countries fighting the Axis, primarily Germany. The British, French and Polish alliance of 1939 is already the beginning of the Allies. This is confirmed by the RS. I would ask you not to mix these terms. Marcelus (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Ha! So which war did the Soviet Union enter when it invaded Poland? Was it the “not the Great Patriotic War because we’re really a peaceful nation, there was no secret agreement, and the Nazis did Katyń” war?  —Michael Z. 13:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Michael: @Marcelus: My 17:41, 23 April 2023 post fully address (and debunks) your arguments. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Michael, what the USSR done with Poland was a crime. Even Soviet officials recognized (retrospectively) that Katyn was a grave mistake. The fact is, however, that during 1939-41 the USSR was considered neutral by all parties, and majority RS still support that. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
You wrote “mistake” when you meant crime against humanity and its systematic coverup (Russia still refuses to declassify some NKVD files on the Katyń massacre).
Is the USSR considered neutral in 1939–41 by all scholars today? No. When it committed aggression against Poland in 1939 it entered a war. Can you name that war?  —Michael Z. 18:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Please, don't twist my words. I cannot believe my English is that bad.
I called it "a crime". I wrote that Soviet officials conceded Katyn was a mistake. I am not sure I gave you a reason to believe I share their view.
Actually, I believe Katyn was both a mistake (because it created a lot of problems for the USSR) and a crime (for obvious reasons).
I think these my words do not allow any ambiguous interpretation. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
"Is the USSR considered neutral in 1939–41 by all scholars today? No." Correct. Some authors say it was neutral, other say it was not. In that situation, we must identify a majority POV and decide how a minority POV should be presented. Just dropping one quote is not what you are expected to do.
I provided several sources saying the USSR was neutral. In that situation you are expected at least to present quotes explicitly saying that it was not neutral. I reiterate: these sources are supposed to say that explicitly. In particular, if the USSR was not neutral, then that non-neutrality was supposed to end somehow, wasn't it? The end of a non-neutral status and switching sides could be marked by signing of some peace treaty, or at least a ceasefire agreement before joining the Allies. Can you show me a source demonstrating that anything of that kind was signed by the USSR after June 1941? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
So in your opinion the communists invading Poland (and conducting mistakes against humanity) was neutral and not part of any war? If not, can you name the war?  —Michael Z. 20:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Michael, it seems you continue to harass me. On different talk pages you are repeatedly accusing me of racism, advocating pro-Russian views, whitewashing Stalinist crimes, etc.
Your acrimonious "mistakes against humanity" is unacceptable.
For this time, I forgive you because I assume that your personal attack was caused by your ignorance: it seems you couldn't recognise that my "Katyn was both a mistake and a crime" was a paraphrase of the famous talleyrand's phrase: That was worse than a crime: it was a mistake.
Again, I forgive you for this time, but don't you believe I am going to tolerate your attacks ad infinitum. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
WRT the war, I provided several sources that claim the USSR was neutral. Now it is your turn. Please demonstrate that these sources provided by me are unreliable, or they represent an insignificant minority views. I am expecting to get some ironclad evidences, and it should be not just an essay saying otherwise, but a detailed and explicit refutation of my sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
You seem to believe the USSR was in a war of neutrality once it invaded Poland. That position is not supported by the sources. I’ll warn you that it is against Wikipedia policy to push an unsupported fringe POV in discussions on article content.  —Michael Z. 20:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you serious. I cited several top quality sources saying the USSR was neutral, and you dare to blame me of pushing unsupported views? Please, stop you unsupported accusations.
Do you know what oxymoron means? That is exactly what you say; "an unsupported fringe POV" is a typical oxymoron: some POV may be fringe only if it is supported (although only by fringe sources). Therefore, my POV can be either fringe or unsupported, but it cannot be fringe and unsupported simultaneously.
In reality, the POV I am advocating is neither unsupported nor fringe, it is a majority POV. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
And are you saying these sources to support your argument that the USSR was not involved in any war with the invasion of Poland? Doesn’t seem acceptable to me. I’ll remind you that this page may be subject to WP:contentious topic. A higher standard is expected, especially from an editor with so many edits.  —Michael Z. 21:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I. Say. That. The. Sources. Cited. By. Me. Say. The. USSR. Was. Neutral.
Are you seriously claiming the sources cited by me are fringe? Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
No. Your view is fringe and not supported by the sources. I put it pretty clearly. Going to disengage now, because you publish thousands of words without WP:HEARing. —Michael Z. 05:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
You may be interesting to read this (ANNA M. CIENCIALA. GENERAL SIKORSKI AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE POLISH-SOVIET AGREEMENT OF JULY 30, 1941: A REASSESSMENT. The Polish Review, 1996, Vol. 41, No. 4 (1996), pp. 401-434). The Sikorski-Maiski agreement was not a ceasefire or a piece agreement, but an agreement about restoration of diplomatic relationships. Never in this document was mentioned a state of war that existed between Poland and the USSR. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, seems like the best solution. As to some concern regarding the non-existance of specific dates, it is as we have seen over this previous dreary discussion not factually possible to give one, as there was no occasion at which all of "the allies" said that they were now "the allies". CarolingianCitizen (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • NoPewr others, this is too simplistic and seems to be just as bad as what we already have (for different reasons). Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • YesSidenote: How hard is it to count to one (sentence)? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Side note

A side note The dates were added because thee was a discussion about the order of the Big Three: some users believed it should be similar to that in the main article, but later we agreed that the order should reflect the date each Ally de fact entered the war. In addition there was a long discussion on if the USSR should be listed as "former Axis poser" in The Axis article. The consensus was it should not. I am just reminding all participants that this article should be in agreemengt with what other articles say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

But June 1941 isn't the date the Soviet Union entered the war. They entered the war in Sep 1939 when they invaded Poland. June 1941 is the date the Soviet Union entered the war against the Axis and my proposal is to state that in the info box. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
“Entered the war” isn’t an accurate description of the USSR in 1941. It came over to the Allied side (even for those who claim it was “neutral” while expanding its empire into various states).  —Michael Z. 21:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
We have two different groups of sources.
The first group says that the USSR was neutral until June 1941, and entered the war as a result of a joint attack by the European Axis.
The second group of sources say the USSR was an aggressor during the invasion of Poland. These sources contain no explicit claim that the USSR "entered the war" (in the same sense as Germany or Britain) on September 1939. That is a conclusion that you infer from them (which is against NOR).
In summary, two groups of sources make seemingly mutually contradicting claims, and one of those claims in an indirect claim. In that situation, a normal approach is not to push your POV as the only existing view, but to think how to present the information in a neutral and correct way.
As I already explained, there are two satisfactory solutions. First, to leave the infobox unchanged (it doesn't say that the USSR was neutral before Barbarossa, it just says when each future Ally de facto joined the war against the common enemy).
Second, if we want to add more details (which would be somewhat against MOS, but may be tolerable), we should specify the opponent. Your solution is not correct for two reasons:
First, it creates a false impression that Britain fought only against Germany (which is false: later it declared a war on all the Axis members except Finland and Bulgaria)
Second, it creates a false impression that the USSR was at war with Germany only (in reality, since June 1941 it was at war with the whole European Axis except Bulgaria).
The second problem is easy to fix by changing (in your proposal) "at war with Germany from Jun 1941" to "at war with the European Axis from Jun 1941", but how can we solve the first problem?
IMO, the current version is the only non-controversial solution. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
None of your sources claim that the Soviet Union entered the Second World War in June 1941. You know this well, which is why you are trying to divert the discussion to the topic of "SU neutrality" (which is still not confirmed by your sources, but it is a more flimsy topic, so it is easier to manipulate on it).
Many sources say explicitly that the SU entered WW2 in 1939 (Debski, Hoffmann, Bellamy et al, this is the mianstream view in modern historiography). Yet you ignore these sources. And you assert falsely: These sources contain no explicit claim that the USSR "entered the war" (in the same sense as Germany or Britain) on September 1939.
At this point there can be no doubt that you are deliberately trying to propagate a false version of history. If you do not retract this, it will have to be reported. I remind you that this is an EE, and there is an ArbCom going on in a similar case. Deliberately falsifying history is a violation of all rules. Marcelus (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
"None of your sources claim that the Soviet Union entered the Second World War in June 1941" This source (already presented and quoted by me) says that the Soviet Union AND the US were "on the sidelines" of the "limited European war, confined to Britain, France, Germany and, briefly, Poland". That is what Reynolds says explicitly. You are free to go by the link, read the source and make sure I didn't take these words out of context.
Deliberately claiming that the source, which obviously says "X", doesn't say "X" is a severe violation. Deliberate accusation of others in lying is a severe violation too.
I will be pretty able to demonstrate to ArbCom (or at AE, or somewhere else) that what I am saying is directly supported by top quality RS, and that your accusations are a personal attack. However, I still believev we all are reasonable persons, who have access to sources and who can read (and understand) English. Please, take a break, re-read my posts, go back to the origin of this conflict, and concede that you were not right (both because you falsely accuse me of spreading false information and because you blatantly misunderstand the point I am trying to make). Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
WRT: " And you assert falsely: These sources contain no explicit claim that the USSR "entered the war" (in the same sense as Germany or Britain) on September 1939." I am sure you will be able to support these your words by quotes. So far, the claim that the USSR entered the war can be just inferred from the quotes provided by you (but that is not what we are allowed to do per NOR). Paul Siebert (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Sławomir Dębski: German-Soviet alliance relations became public after the Soviet aggression against Poland on September 17, 1939, symbolized by the joint victory parade organized on September 22, 1939 in the streets of Brest. The aggression against Poland was tantamount to the USSR's entry into World War II. Marcelus (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, we have several sources that form a broad spectrum, starting from "The USSR was neutral" and ending with "Soviet invasion of Poland was tantamount to the USSR's entry into WWII". You presented one source, which seems to represent one of the extreme points, and based on that you claim that I am spreading false information? That is tantamount to "My source is good, your sourceS are lousy". Paul Siebert (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
That discussion is ended and resolved. Claim that Soviet Union joined the war only in 1941 is fundamentally false and not supported by any other sources. Marcelus (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Can users please stop adding walls of text it is making this very hard to follow. 08:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gabriel, Gorodetsky (1988). "The Origins of the Cold War. Stalin, Churchill and the Formation of the Grand Alliance". The Russian Review. 47 (2): 155. Churchill's famous speech of 22 June was directed to varying quarters and brilliantly concealed his determination to avoid a genuine association. Churchill had readily bowed to a request by both the Chiefs of Staff and the Foreign Office not to refer to the Russians as allies.
  2. ^ Weinberg, Gerhard L. (2005). A World at Arms, a global history of World War II (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 284–5. ISBN 9780521853163. On the political front, the Soviet Union and Great Britain had signed an agreement in Moscow on July 12, 1941. Requested by Stalin as a sign of cooperation, it provided for mutual assistance and an understanding not to negotiate or conclude an armistice or peace except by mutual consent. Soviet insistence on such an agreement presumably reflected their suspicion of Great Britain, though there is no evidence that either party to it ever ceased to have its doubt about the loyalty of the other if attractive alternatives were thought to be available.
  3. ^ Woodward, Llewellyn (1962). British Foreign Policy in the Second World War. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 162–3. He [Cripps] replied on July 10 that Stalin had accepted 'an agreement for joint action between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the government of the U.S.S.R. in the war against Germany.' ...The agreement was signed on July 12.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II/Archive_14&oldid=1174223340"