Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 3

Lend Lease

Grant: Let spell it out another way: Congress authorized Lend Lease aid to the Soviet Union & the Kuomintang; the Soviet Union channelled Lend Lease from the United States to the CCP. So in the eyes of many Chinese, the United States supplied both Kuomintang & CCP with weapons so the Chinese would kill themselves. This certainly was not U.S. stated policy, nor its objectives; but in truth & reality, it is what happened. And many Chinese today (and others around the world) clearly remember this. nobs 17:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The CCP and KMT were both fighting Japan, it's as simple as that. The Second Sino-Japanese War started in 1937 and continued until 1945. And no, I don't want to remove the first paragraph. Grant65 (Talk) 00:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I understand what you are saying; it's simply not relevant to the article. Grant65 (Talk) 00:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is extrememly relevent, and it is exactly this inattention to detail that brought about the subversion uf US policy. 1995 is the date of departure for historical revisionism which will take place. It may take decades. But much of what is known about, assumed, and taught in schools, regarding the the deacdes of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s will be rewritten. nobs 01:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

China, Part 2

What does any of the above have to do with who was fighting who in WW2? How is it relevant to the article that there was a different regime in China in 1937? I suggest, in fact, that to say Kuomintang instead of China is seriously misleading: the Chinese Communist Party was also fighting the Japanese and therefore the present regime was fighting in 1937. China covers both entities. Grant65 (Talk) 11:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

American funding to it's ally, the Soviet Union, to fight the Axis, was being transfered to fight Americans ally, the Kuomintang. To Refer to the CCP in 1937 (which can fit the modern definition of a terrorist organization) as "China" is misleading. In no sense can the CCP be referred to as "China" in 1937. It was not a legitimate government; it was actively engaged in illegal acts under International Law at that time to remove a legitimate government; it was funded by illegal acts of subversion; and its primary belligerency was directed against the legitimate government, not Japan. Again, to refer to the CPP as "China" in 1937 is a blatant falsehood. If source information, other than the CCP, or U.S. government files other than those that wittingingly or unwittingly can be developed, to prove the CCP was activiely carrying on some belligerency against Japan in 1937, than the proper thing to do is list both Kuomintang and CCP (or the so-called United Front of China). This may be the best solution for now. nobs 14:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again, the article is not about parties or regimes within Allied countries, especially when all concerned were fighting Axis forces. According to Sino-Japanese_War_(1937-1945)#Invasion_of_China, Chiang was forced at gunpoint to form an alliance with the CCP. Hardly sounds like the reds were unenthusiastic! Grant65 (Talk) 22:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is another issues that must be considered here; there is a wealth of information in Wikipedia on Chinese involvement in WWII, some written by editors sympathetic to the Chinese Nationalist, some obviously carrying the present day CCP version of events. This volume of material likewise must be dealt with. No sense us compounding the problem here when it is within our power to strive for clarity. nobs 00:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party, the KMT had 1,700,000 men in 1937, and the CCP 70,000 [1]. All this information needs to be checked against what is in Wikipedia already. Epoch Times states for example,

• "The CCP labeled the “Long March” as a northbound anti-Japanese operation. It trumpeted the “Long March” as a Chinese revolutionary fairy tale. It claimed that the “Long March” was a “manifesto,” a “propaganda team” and a “seeding machine,” which ended with the CCP’s victory and their enemies’ defeat.

• "The CCP fabricated such obvious lies about marching north to fight the Japanese to cover its failures. " and,

• "The CCP realized that if it were to face battle with the Japanese, it would not be able to defeat even a single division of the Japanese troops. In the eyes of the CCP, sustaining its own power rather than ensuring the survival of the nation was the central focus of the emphasis on “national unity.” Therefore, during its cooperation with the KMT, the CCP exercised an internal policy of “giving priority to the struggle for political power, which is to be disclosed internally and realized in actual practice.” and

• "CCP fought shoulder to shoulder with Japanese invaders to defeat the KMT" and

• "they only had local armies and guerrilla forces in camps away from the front lines. Except for a few battles, including the one fought at Pingxing Pass, the CCP did not make much of a contribution to the war against the Japanese at all. Instead, they spent their energy expanding their own base. When the Japanese surrendered, the CCP incorporated the surrendering soldiers into its army, claiming to have expanded to more than 900,000 regular soldiers, in addition to 2 million militia fighters. The KMT army was essentially alone on the frontlines while fighting the Japanese, losing over 200 marshalls in the war. The commanding officers on the CCP side bore nearly no losses. However, the textbooks of the CCP constantly claimed that the KMT did not resist the Japanese, and that it was the CCP that led the great victory in the anti-Japanese war.

All this material must be addressed (See The “Anti-Japanese” North-Bound Operation—The Flight of the Defeated, to the end of Part II). nobs 03:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Have your even checked its credibilities? No sources, no footnotes, and written much in the style of Cultural Revolution era propaganda. They are very much the only ones stating what they claim, and not verified by any historians or third parties. If you bothered to read the Epoch Times, their agenda is not to present facts, but wanting to overthrow the CCP. It also stated that the CCP is the anti-Christ, should this be presented as fact? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) .

Note: material is indeed sourced & footnoted. nobs 17:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on the respective war efforts of the KMT and CCP. It has nothing to do with the issue. China is China is China is China. And all of it was at war with Japan in 1937-45. Grant65 (Talk) 10:08, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

May be we should expecitly mention that BOTH CCP and KMT were in war with Japan?--Nixer 13:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

CCP propaganda & revisionism should not be considered the factual basis for a Wikipedia article. nobs 16:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Neither shoud anti-Chinese propaganda or pro-Taiwanese propaganda, which "Nine Commentaries" is. Please don't counter propaganda with propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) .

Note:anti-CCP propaganda is not the same thing as "anti-Chinese", as stated above. nobs 17:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

So they weren't both at war with Japan? Grant65 (Talk) 23:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be taking place on Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War and much of the material added to this article (regarding Soviet and German support for China) should be moved to that article. It relates to earlier periods and has no direct relationship to the Allies of WW2.Grant65 (Talk) 23:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The above reference material, specifically

"Except for a few battles, including the one fought at Pingxing Pass, the CCP did not make much of a contribution to the war against the Japanese at all" and

"When the Japanese surrendered, the CCP incorporated the surrendering soldiers into its army"

is sufficient to suspect any CCP contributions outside Pingxing Pass and the Hundred Regiment Battle, unless references other than the CCP can be cited to assert such claims, or it can be properly sourced those battles occurred in 1937. nobs 23:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Joe Stilwell certainly thinks that CCP is more militarily efficient than the KMT, as well as Edgar Snow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) .

Note: Joe Stillwell is not FDR; Joe Stillwell was invited to make observations, not policy decisions, nor authorized to subvert FDR's policy decisions. In the United States, the military is subordinate to civil authority. nobs 17:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, we've laboriously made the distinction between the Polish Home Army and the Polish People's Army (the Sikorski Regime and the Rokossovsky Regime); the same distinction must be made here. All Comintern organizations need to be properly indentified, WWII in large measure was a War against the Comintern. Hitler's rise to power is attributed to stopping the Comintern from taking over Germany. This document [2], German Foreign Minister to the German Ambassador in Moscow dated 21 June 1941 cites "Comintern activity" as the cause of the German invasion of the Soviet Union. nobs 00:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

And just as it is enough to say that Poland was at war with Germany in 1939-45 and at war with the USSR in 1939-42, it is enough to say that China was at war with Japan in 1937-45. It is so absurd to say that the CCP did not contribute to the war against Japan that I hardly know where to begin. Grant65 (Talk) 10:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

You can begin with non-CCP sources that verify CCP's revisionism. nobs 17:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You can being with sources not from Epoch Times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) .

Note: you can begin by signing your comments. nobs 17:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

God give me strength... How about the US Marines? Check the origins of Gung Ho and follow the links from there. Grant65 (Talk) 00:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

De facto

I would suggest that it might be appropriate to say that while the non-aggression pact held, the Soviet Union was a de facto ally of Germany, but there was never the type of overt alliance that there later was with the Western Allies. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:28, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

De facto USSR fought against Japan, Finland, Romania and fascist regime in Spain - all German allies. Also it helped Ethiopia in its battle against Mussolini.--Nixer 21:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"De facto ally of Germany" seems acceptable to me, as it does not rise questions about the secret protocol. The alliance with the Western Allies was obviously not a secret one. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I've tried applying it as a compromise solution now. Let's see if it 'll work out. --Lysy ^(talk) 10:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Italy, Ethiopia

I think, we should mention here the Italian invasion in Ethiopia, Albania and so on, shouldn't we?

Unlike the Chinese-Japanese conflict, which went from 1937-45, the Second Italo-Abyssinian War was over by December 1936, guerilla activities excepted. The League of Nations had even dropped sanctions against Italy by that time.Grant65 (Talk) 12:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed--Nixer 12:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

SU/DE: Allies or not

Instead of trying to figure logically whether it is correct to call the SU an "ally of Germany", why not simply check what most of the mainstream historical thought says about it. Unlike minor events, little covered in historical works, these events received a huge attention. I suggest that those who want to call the SU a "German Ally" here, to please check how widely this is used in English historical literature. If this is a prevailing notion, we should use it here too. If of all solid researchers only an insignificant fraction use it (or none at all), there is no issue for us here. Does this suggestion sound constructive? --Irpen 06:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC) фыфыв

It would but as the "secret protocol" has been kept secret by the Soviets, who denied its existence, I doubt that there is much of research on this other than in Polish sources. The text of the secret protocol however is available in English now, so the fact of plotting to invade Poland is self-evident now. Do you need any more proof ? --Lysy ^(talk) 10:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is a recent BBC story about entitled Questions remain over Yalta's legacy. Key quote:

Did the "Big Three" really meet as allies at Yalta? Or - as the historian Gregor Dallas argues - were the Western leaders too readily seduced by Stalin, who just four years previously had been an ally of Hitler and who only ever acted in the interests of Soviet communism?

BBC is just about as mainstream as you can get. Balcer 17:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC):

Stalin was always only out for himself. He used everyone else like toilet paper. I heard once that Stalin had his own wife murdered, when she asked him over dinner about all of the people he had killed. Is this true? If so, it provides evidence into the life of a murderous sociopath. The fact is that Stalin made alliances, then broke them, as it seemed advantageous for him to do so, and depending upon whom he (Stalin) was trying to rub out at the time. This was the mark of how Stalin did business; part of the terror was that nobody ever knew whom he was going to kill next. Instead, people just kept on disappearing. Or they would be taken away on mock charges. The Soviets accurately point out that the pathetic Russian people suffered greatly under the tyrant, Stalin. Perhaps the Russian people should rightfully hate Stalin more than anybody else. I wonder whom Stalin killed more of, Russians or Germans? Does anybody know? And whom murdered more Jewish victims: Stalin or Hitler? Are there any figures available for comparison? Perhaps somebody can set up a biographical page on Stalin, for reference. Then we can discuss whether he was a "good guy" or not. Who was worse, Stalin or Hitler? The Rumanian, Wurmbrand, said in his book that it was more of a nightmare to live under Stalin's forces than under Hitler's men. And Wurmbrand should know; he suffered under both. -Ned. (Sept.)

To the BBC quote by Balcer: BBC is mainstream all right. However, please note, that the BBC's own commentator doesn't say it. The article just quotes a historian. I would like to see that this is a common opinion of most mainstream historians, not just of this Gregor Dallas. It is important to distinguish when a reputable source just says something as if it is a known fact or it simply gives someone's quote. Recently, I personally removed the following phrase from Russophobia article: As the New York Times recently observed about the Poles, "they talk about Russians the way anti-Semites talk about Jews". One may argue that if NYT says so, it is mainstream, while in that case NYT interviewed a Russian political scientist and quoted his answer to this question. I disagreed with calling the quote of a particular politician "a NYT observation" and, therefore, removed that text.

So, if calling the Soviet Union and ally of Nazi Germany before '41 is what mainstream historical thought does, we should keep it. Otherwise, we should not. The "secret appendix" is known for some time and if the term "allies" was the most common phrasing to describe it, I would probably know. And I think this phrasing is rarely used if at all. Maybe it is widely used in Poland, but that's not enough. So, we should state the fact (mention the Pact), but keep the analysis that some Wikipedians prefer out of the article, because only indisputably accepted mainstream analysis may be presented in WP as fact. I will change tha article as per this (actually, Balcer himself did so earlier). Please do not revert without discussion. --Irpen 02:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The point to be made here is that SU & DE had a de facto pact to (1) invade Poland (2) dismember Poland. The fact that the SU did so 3 weeks after Deutschland did (after France, Great Britain, etc declared war) is of little significance or consequence. What should be revised is the opening statement that the World War II began when Germany invaded Poland, because clearly it was a prearranged agreement with the Soviet Union. Both parties waged aggressive war, both parties committed (as the Nuremberg Tirbunal declared) a Crime Against Peace. nobs 02:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

NYT didn't observe that Poles "they talk about Russians the way anti-Semites talk about Jews".It was a statement of Russian advisor of Putin not NYTs opinion. As to German Soviet alliance : http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/sesupp1.htm

The undersigned plenipotentiaries, on concluding the German Russian Boundary and Friendship Treaty, have declared their agreement upon the following:

Both parties will tolerate in their territories no Polish agitation which affects the territories of the other party. They will suppress in their territories all beginnings of such agitation and inform each other concerning suitable measures for this purpose.

Moscow, September 28,1939.

For the Government of the German Retch:

J. RIBBENTROP

By authority of the Government of the U.S.S.R.:

W. MOLOTOV (194.30.182.245)

Regarding what NYT observed, this is exactly what I said. We should not confuse BBC and NYT observations with the quotes of some people they reprint for the information. There is also no need to quote the pact and try to derive ourselves whether this qualifies for "alliance" or not. Wikipedians' own analysis is irrelevant. What's relevant, is what established historians say. We saw that Gregor Dallas, a historian, says so. Is this what most other specialist say or this is a minority opinion to which Gregor Dallas subscribes? I think it is the latter. Please do not try to analyze yourselves something of such significance that was surely analyzed by specialists. --Irpen 03:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

All I wanted to show is that calling USSR an ally of Germany is acceptable in mainstream Western media, which means it is not an outlandish idea only propagated by some fringe Polish nationalists. Presumably the BBC has some reasonably high standards in choosing whom they quote. Here they have chosen to quote a historian who, I believe, has sufficient credentials. ([http://www.amazon.com get list of books by him on amazon.com]). Most of these books are also available in my university library.

If I have time, I will take a walk to that library some time and try to take a quick survey of books on the subject, to see how often the term "alliance" is used. I am curious myself. Balcer 04:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It is easy to find examples of people that are not Polish, and that call it by the name. I don't think Prof. Gerhard Rempel is Polish, hopefully he is not a wikipedian either. He specializes in modern European history and he explains[3]:

The public text of the Nazi-Soviet Pact was simply an agreement of nonaggression and neutrality, referring as a precedent to the German-Soviet neutrality pact of 1926. The real agreement was in a secret protocol which in effect partitioned not only Poland (along the line of the Vistula) but much of Eastern Europe. To the Soviets were allotted Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Bessarabia; to the Nazis, everything to the West of these regions, including Lithuania. Each of the two signatories was to ask the other no questions about the disposition of its own "sphere of interest." This nonaggression pact, coupled with the trade treaty and arrangements for large-scale exchange of raw materials and armaments, amounted to an alliance.

The older sources of course were not aware of the fact of the alliance, but hey, we are writing it now. It is 2005. We know now that the secret protocol to the pact existed and we know its text, including the Article II:

"In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San. The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments...".

A non-aggression pact ? A good one. Now, a question to you: Why was this protocol made secret, while the whole pact was not ? If you answer this question you'll also understand why Soviets called the treaty "a non-aggression pact" and not an alliance, despite of its content and true intentions. --Lysy ^(talk) 04:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It is true in the English speaking countries you have decades of disinformation to cover for Soviet aggression. This should be considered in the wider context of revisionism vis-a vis Venona project materials, that effectively document Soviet infiltation and subversion into the United States Government, subversion of its foreign policy objectives, and subversion of its media. nobs 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why the protocol was kept secret is obvious. That BBC picks who to quote, I believe too. So does NYT. Does anyone want to return the quote of Gleb Pavlovsky?

Neither I deny, nor try to justify the pre-arrangement with regard to the Eastern Europe. We now have quotes from two established historians (I don't care whether they are also Wikipedians, but I do care that pseudonymous Wikipedians, myself included, are not entitled to make their own significant analysis of events and present it. Only very straightforward conclusions we can make on our own). Two historians consider this as "alliance". I take that. I do beleive that they are both mainstream. I would like to know whether the term "alliance" is currenltly the most established one to call this relationship. I don't think so, because I didn't see it often. I am not a fan of WW2 history but I think I would be aware of this being widely accepted if it was a main term. Checking the library is a good idea of course. Also, a reminder, thath the appendix is declassified for long enough to have its interpretations widely established and publicized. And, finally, what's wrong with "but see also the P of MR" formulation? It states the facts just as well. --Irpen 05:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with it as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's mentioned next to USSR (this I consider vital for maintaining the historic truth). I don't insist on calling it an alliance if you find the name controversial or abusive. However I believe using "alliance" would be especially proper in the context of this article, which is about WW2 alliances after all. This would best illustrate how dynamic the alliances were, and that SU was not that friendly throughout all the war, as we tend to think now. As to "mainstream media", I think that wikipedia would better reflect historic truth than popular wisdom. --Lysy ^(talk) 06:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I placed it exactly next to the USSR where it belongs. Just take a look! What matters is not whether myself or others find the term abusive, but that we should not use the term whose acceptance in the field is not wide. I think trying to catch "historic truth" will lead us nowhere. No encyclopedia reflects some absolute truth. It reflects the prevailing knowledge of the field. That's why it is important to check against established and repuatble sources for conclusions and terminology. "Alliance" is sometimes used but it is not a universally agreed term (and I don't just meen FSU historians). --Irpen 21:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with this thinking, but you know this already from our other discussions. And I know that you're a big fan of copying Encyclopedia Britannica ;-) (sorry, I could not resist) --Lysy ^(talk) 22:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

??? -Irpen 22:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hasan

Should we mention the Hasan incident of 1938 between the USSR and Japan?--Nixer 08:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)