Allied ≠ Russians?

World War II General WWII Discussion
#1

Hey everybody,

Just a general thought I had:

Did anybody notice how it seems to be relatively common that people, when using the term ‘Allies’ in WW2, only seem to think of the US/UK/France instead of US/UK/France/USSR?

I repeatedly catch myself choosing to say ‘Russia’ or ‘the Soviets’ instead of simply saying Allies - of whom they were a part of.

It’s not only trying to be specific, it’s simply a subconscious feeling that those two are different, and I can’t explain why, really.

Now, I guess it might be part of my German viewpoint, but what about you guys? When you refer to the Allies, are you truly meaning everybody, or do you - subconsciously - only think of the Western Powers. I’m talking about General Usage here, not political/historical correct talk.

My hypothesis is that, aside the obvious German separation between the Western Powers and the Soviet ones, the Cold War and its ‘Them vs Us’ speech is a major factor in this attitude.

What do you guys think of that?

#2

Both side of the front fought such a different war that it seem legitimate to separate both allied sides.
The same can be said about the great war when Russia did fight more than 3 years against Germany and Austria but is often forgotten as an ally country.
And that is a point of view from the other side of the Rhine.:wink:

#3

Hey Schuultz, I was looking up what you said, and it never occurred to me. Your Right!..And I think even China is considered an Allie too!!

Major Allies
(later: permanent members of the UN Security Council)
China
France (3 September 1939) - then (after 1940) Free France
United Kingdom (3 September 1939)
Soviet Union (from 22 June 1941)
United States (from 7 December 1941)

Minor Allies
Australia
Belgium (invaded May 10, 1940)
Brazil
Canada (10 September 1939)
Greece (invaded October 28, 1940)
Holland (invaded May 10, 1940)
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Norway (invaded April 9, 1940)
Poland (invaded 1 September 1939)
South Africa
Yugoslavia

#4

That’s a good point Schuultz. I must admit I can be ambiguous with my own usage of the term ‘Allies’ when referring to World War II. Some times I incorporate the Soviets into the group when referring to the Allies but more often I’ll call them the Allies along with the Soviets or Russians.

Perhaps it is because the U.S., U.K., and France along with the smaller nations were generally fighting alongside each other while the Soviets were mostly on their own front. Or perhaps it is because for 50 years after the war the Soviets were the enemy for the Western powers so maybe we want to overlook the fact that the Soviets were a member of the Allies.

#5

I’d agree with the above. Owing to the fact that the western Allies fought on a different front and instances of both Soviet and Western forces fighting alongside one another are rare (Artic convoys being the only example i’m aware of) there is an obvious seperation - out of sight, out of mind. Furthermore when western historians were writing up the conflict during the cold war there would have been a natural inclination to try and not include their new adversaries. I can think of another example of this would be the that the Chinese theatre is often forgotten in mainstream western histories of WW2.

#6

True, I can’t recall ever really hearing about the Chinese theater, other than as a side-note when talking about the War in the Pacific between the US and Japan…

#7

What? UDSSR was in Ally side?
I thought the USSR was ally of Germany;)
In 1939 we so well have invaded Poland…

#8

And with Barbarossa they became Allies of the western powers, and were the ones that really broke Germany’s back, contrary to popular US/UK opiniion…

#9

Not too mention Finland. :slight_smile:

#10

It was anything but a sideshow. If the Japanese could have released the divisions they had in China, which from memory were probably about three times as many as the twelve they deployed for their thrusts south, the war could have been very different. Although that assumes that Japan had the merchant shipping to support so many more divisions overseas, which it didn’t, so whether they could have been deployed is debatable. Admittedly, a lot of the divisions in China were facing the Soviets, so they couldn’t have been released even if Japan had succeeded in China.

#11

…and Chehoslovakia :slight_smile:

#12

Nope, that was just pure Nazi Germany! (1968 doesn’t count here :wink: )

#13

Oh common.
It was lend lise that really has broke the Germany’s back, every kid know it.:slight_smile:

#14

Yeah pure Nazi GErmany.

Utter Germans here.
And what was happend in 1968?:slight_smile:

#15

The French and British being on the same side certainly seems odd. The British and French were enemies in the War of the Austrian Succession, Seven Years War, American Revolutionary War, French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars. By contrast, the Russians seem to have generally been allied with Britain.

#16

and they fought each other in ww2.Just like in old good times:)
Brits pretty well attacked and killed their former ally in 1940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France#Vichy_French_colonies
I don’t really think the France was an in ally side at all.
In fact they more have cpontibuted to Axis then to allies.The Poles contibuted to Victory much more then Frenches.
The Vichy’s France pretty well colloborated and supported Nazy Germany, actively applied the ethnic and race policy inside the France.
The strength of French resistece was about 20 000 , but at the same time about 60 000 of Frenches volunteres fought alongside Nazy GErmany.

#17

Furthermore, according to Anthony Beevor (Author of Stalingrad & Berlin) the last Wehrmacht unit left defending Hitler’s bunker was the SS Charlamagne division composed of French & Belgian volunteers. Or let us not forget the fact that French troops opposed the Allied landings in North Africa. That said the resistance was invaluable in aiding Allied war efforts in France, by attacking train lines they severely hindered German efforts to re-inforce the forces opposing the Normandy beachead. Swings & roundabouts.

#18

In fairness to the French armed forces under Vichy, many would also have been fearful of the consequences for their families in France of defying their own government and aligning themselves with Britain, such as by handing a French ship over to the British. It wasn’t a uniquely French act to avoid doing things which, while useful to the Allied cause, exposed one or one’s family to retribution under the Nazis. Also:

[Quote]
Originally Posted by arhob1
Arguing that the French Navy was correct in aligning itself with the Vichy Nazi puppet government is ridiculous.

My antipathy towards the Vichy government nothwithstanding, I’m not so sure.

The French armed forces were, as is the custom in all nations, controlled by their government. Leaving aside the arguments about the legitimacy of the appointment of the Vichy government which raises interesting issues about French constitutional law and the processes and voting that put Petain in, the only choices available to the French armed forces were to accept or reject the legitimacy of that government.

I don’t think we can criticise the French armed force commanders for accepting the legitimacy of the Vichy government. What other source of authority could they have accepted? It wasn’t in the nature of senior officers in any Western nation to make their own rules.

I think we can reasonably recognise de Gaulle and his adherents as exceptionally brave in declining to accept the Vichy government, but it’s unfair to expect captains of large and small French ships to defy orders from above from the Vichy government, whatever their and their crews’ personal views.[/quote] http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4666&page=2

#19

Hmmm France and Britain were friendly nation since the Crimean war with the Entente cordiale signed in 1904 they became allies.
Concerning the Charlemagne division,just a few corrections :
as far as I know no Belgian troops were in the French division.Walloons(French speaking) were in the 28. SS-div Wallonie(some French did fight in this division though) and the Flemish Belgians were in the Sturmbrigade “Langemarck”.The Nordland division and the remnant of the Charlemagne(no more than 500 men) were indeed the only SS divisions present in Berlin along many other Heer,Luftwaffe units.They defended the Air ministry( occupying Hedemannstrasse and Puttkam strasse) not the fuhrerbunker.
As for the British fighting the French,well yes but if you read the wiki link,it was fr the Free french to take other.
@Chevan ,as much as I respect the Russian dead during WW2 ,I wish I would have the same respect from you for the French who died for their country in 1940 and the years after?
As far as now Hiwis were collaborators too but I don’t claim Russia wasn’t an ally.

#20

Exactly mr Student:)
You make the brillians succes , learning the history
That infamous Frenche ss-brigade “Charlemagn” , who have spoiled some of blood to Soviet Tankers by their Panzerfausts.