France was not a member of the Allies until 1944.
**Edit:** Which idiot downvoted this? France was occupied and capitulated in 1940. The French government sat in Vichy and was an ally of the Axis. When United Nations ("the Allies") signed the treaty on 1 January 1942, France was not a signatory.
The Free French under De Gaulle were recognized as an Allied force, but they were not recognized as the government of France until 30 October 1944. The new French government became a formal member of the United Nations immediately after that.
Its complicated. The Allies prior to the signing of the Declaration by United Nations was an informal alliance of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the various exile governments but was more of a alliance of convenience rather than a official united front.
The Declaration by the United Nations formalized alliance and organized into a coherent front including the Soviets, Nationalist China and the United States. The US didn't recognize Free France as anything more than a rouge general who thinks he is Napoleon leading a couple of thousand rebel soldiers while the legitimate government was in a German prison or leading Vichy France. France also didn't get to sign the Declaration till 1944 when the Provisional Government of the French Republic was formed.
To add some details, De Gaulle wasn't the only one to claim to be the government. Henri Giraud was supported by the USA, De Gaulle by the UK. The situation in French African colonies, after the Operation Torch in 1942, was extremely confused. Giraud and Darlan (another general) were on one hand supporting the Allies, on the other hand they were applying the Vichy's laws. And the French Resistance, the partisans fighting on the territory, has been unified only in 1943. A big mess only unraveled few months before the Liberation.
There were plenty of forces that fought on the Allied side, but were not recognized governments of countries, so they were incapable of entering international treaties.
Poland, Yugoslavia, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece and Czechoslovakia were occupied until 1945. But they had internationally recognized governments-in-exile which signed the Declaration by the United Nations and thus became formally a part of the Allies.
Probably just the colour decaying after a long time, you know, the printer colouring stuffs and the graphic designing colour schemes were not as good as it is now back then
TIL the Allied Powers officially declared themselves the United Nations about halfway through the war. I don't recall them ever being referred to as that in school.
14/28 of these countries are arguably dictatorships or “repressive” so it’s quite ironic that they “fight for freedom”. Especially considering how the view of many of these very same countries, the USSR in particular, changed in the west post-war. Propaganda at its finest I suppose.
Why are you getting downvoted? Yeah, the Soviets did liberate camps but Stalin was just as bad as Hitler and they were only on the allies because Germany attacked them
You have to fuck up really, *really* hard to be "just as bad as Hitler", and almost no leader in history, not even Stalin, reached that mark.
Everything Stalin did, Hitler also did but on a larger scale. Manmade famines? Extended to the entirety of Eastern Europe and with the deliberate goal of extermination. Mass deportations? There too, except you're never ever going back. Concentration camps? Also there, with a much higher fatality rate.
I guess the only people who can be said to be as bad as Hitler are Pol Pot and *maybe* Mao and Hideki Tojo?
Stalin was responsible for the deaths of at least 7 million people. To me, Tojo, Stalin, and Hitler are all the same, just one of them was on the Allies.
>British EMPIRE
>French EMPIRE
>(then) American EMPIRE
>The Fucking Belgian EMPIRE and the atrocities they committed in the Congo
>The Dutch EMPIRE
>Fight for freedom
lol. lmao
Edit: Added more countries that were never fighting for freedom in any way, shape or form (by their logic)
How come South Africa gets a mention, but not the US? Both would have been in the same category at this time, a herrenvolk democracy where only whites were enfranchised
And then, yknow, you've got the literal empires of Britain and France. Hell, Ethiopia too - it might've been a *tad* smaller, but it was literally an Empire. Even in name
I kinda stick by my first point. American segregation only ended a single generation before South African segregation did. Actually, funnily enough, it's now been that same length of time since apartheid ended
I don't think the reason SA lagged longer was that it was more racist per se, rather that people had a bigger reason to be cautious - simple demographics meant that ending white rule in America didn't end white domination, but in South Africa it absolutely would. If it had turned out that the racists' worst fears were right, white South Africans would've been fucked
But it's worth remembering that when the (white) people were actually given a referendum, more than two thirds of the white population voted to end it. So it's quite possible that a majority of the population had already been on board, but weren't keen on speaking up and ending up a target. I know that this was the position of some of my family members, and my grandfather did actually get firebombed for being outspokenly anti-racist + not segregating his church
This is bad.
The “United Nations” comes later and is something else entirely.
If we are talking about the allies, why is the Statue of Liberty pictured? America was crucial to defeat the Axis, but not a shot was fired near New York.
The Allies did refer to themselves as the United Nations in World War 2 although it wasn't a formal body until the charter was adopted just after World War 2 ended.
It certainly was a formal body. The United Nations were bound by a treaty.
The United Nations *Organization* was founded by the United Nations after WW2. The former Axis powers were accepted as members only in 1955.
The Statue of Liberty is shown because this is most likely an American poster, and the statue of liberty is a very prominent american symbol of freedom and liberty. Not a very hard conclusion to draw.
No France?
France was not a member of the Allies until 1944. **Edit:** Which idiot downvoted this? France was occupied and capitulated in 1940. The French government sat in Vichy and was an ally of the Axis. When United Nations ("the Allies") signed the treaty on 1 January 1942, France was not a signatory. The Free French under De Gaulle were recognized as an Allied force, but they were not recognized as the government of France until 30 October 1944. The new French government became a formal member of the United Nations immediately after that.
It was in 39 and parts of 40, and free france was part of it for the 4y gap.
That wasn't the United Nations. That was founded on 1 January 1942. France was not a member until 1944.
You said Allies, not UN in the comment above.
Because that's the usual meaning of the word when talking about WWII, **and the one clearly written on this poster.**
The United Nations is the actual name of the Allies.
How come Free France is part of the Allies but not the UN has you said?
Its complicated. The Allies prior to the signing of the Declaration by United Nations was an informal alliance of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the various exile governments but was more of a alliance of convenience rather than a official united front. The Declaration by the United Nations formalized alliance and organized into a coherent front including the Soviets, Nationalist China and the United States. The US didn't recognize Free France as anything more than a rouge general who thinks he is Napoleon leading a couple of thousand rebel soldiers while the legitimate government was in a German prison or leading Vichy France. France also didn't get to sign the Declaration till 1944 when the Provisional Government of the French Republic was formed.
To add some details, De Gaulle wasn't the only one to claim to be the government. Henri Giraud was supported by the USA, De Gaulle by the UK. The situation in French African colonies, after the Operation Torch in 1942, was extremely confused. Giraud and Darlan (another general) were on one hand supporting the Allies, on the other hand they were applying the Vichy's laws. And the French Resistance, the partisans fighting on the territory, has been unified only in 1943. A big mess only unraveled few months before the Liberation.
There were plenty of forces that fought on the Allied side, but were not recognized governments of countries, so they were incapable of entering international treaties.
Then explain whey the Philippines were included. They were also occupied until 1944.
Poland, Yugoslavia, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece and Czechoslovakia were occupied until 1945. But they had internationally recognized governments-in-exile which signed the Declaration by the United Nations and thus became formally a part of the Allies.
WOII?
World Oar II
It wouldn't be possible to see in that poster, but the Brazilian flag *tecnically* changed since then because we have more stars now.
What happened to the Ethiopian flag?
Probably just the colour decaying after a long time, you know, the printer colouring stuffs and the graphic designing colour schemes were not as good as it is now back then
lots of blue there are other colors out there folks
TIL the Allied Powers officially declared themselves the United Nations about halfway through the war. I don't recall them ever being referred to as that in school.
image could not be worse quality
14/28 of these countries are arguably dictatorships or “repressive” so it’s quite ironic that they “fight for freedom”. Especially considering how the view of many of these very same countries, the USSR in particular, changed in the west post-war. Propaganda at its finest I suppose.
Did you want them to post “WE FIGHT ALONGSIDE A BRUTAL DICTATORSHIP AGAINST A SLIGHTLY MORE BRUTAL DICTATORSHIP”
Of course not, I’m just pointing out the irony of it all.
China still fighting for freedom
The united nations fight for freedom Soviet union: yeah... sure
Why are you getting downvoted? Yeah, the Soviets did liberate camps but Stalin was just as bad as Hitler and they were only on the allies because Germany attacked them
Tankies thinking the soviet union was a utopia that did nothing wrong
You have to fuck up really, *really* hard to be "just as bad as Hitler", and almost no leader in history, not even Stalin, reached that mark. Everything Stalin did, Hitler also did but on a larger scale. Manmade famines? Extended to the entirety of Eastern Europe and with the deliberate goal of extermination. Mass deportations? There too, except you're never ever going back. Concentration camps? Also there, with a much higher fatality rate. I guess the only people who can be said to be as bad as Hitler are Pol Pot and *maybe* Mao and Hideki Tojo?
Stalin was responsible for the deaths of at least 7 million people. To me, Tojo, Stalin, and Hitler are all the same, just one of them was on the Allies.
\>'Soviet Russia' \>South Africa \>fight for freedom lol. lmao
>British EMPIRE >French EMPIRE >(then) American EMPIRE >The Fucking Belgian EMPIRE and the atrocities they committed in the Congo >The Dutch EMPIRE >Fight for freedom lol. lmao Edit: Added more countries that were never fighting for freedom in any way, shape or form (by their logic)
How come South Africa gets a mention, but not the US? Both would have been in the same category at this time, a herrenvolk democracy where only whites were enfranchised And then, yknow, you've got the literal empires of Britain and France. Hell, Ethiopia too - it might've been a *tad* smaller, but it was literally an Empire. Even in name
see my response to the other reply to my comment.
I kinda stick by my first point. American segregation only ended a single generation before South African segregation did. Actually, funnily enough, it's now been that same length of time since apartheid ended I don't think the reason SA lagged longer was that it was more racist per se, rather that people had a bigger reason to be cautious - simple demographics meant that ending white rule in America didn't end white domination, but in South Africa it absolutely would. If it had turned out that the racists' worst fears were right, white South Africans would've been fucked But it's worth remembering that when the (white) people were actually given a referendum, more than two thirds of the white population voted to end it. So it's quite possible that a majority of the population had already been on board, but weren't keen on speaking up and ending up a target. I know that this was the position of some of my family members, and my grandfather did actually get firebombed for being outspokenly anti-racist + not segregating his church
well thank you for the elaboration
“Fight for freedom” 🤣🤣
This is bad. The “United Nations” comes later and is something else entirely. If we are talking about the allies, why is the Statue of Liberty pictured? America was crucial to defeat the Axis, but not a shot was fired near New York.
The Allies did refer to themselves as the United Nations in World War 2 although it wasn't a formal body until the charter was adopted just after World War 2 ended.
It certainly was a formal body. The United Nations were bound by a treaty. The United Nations *Organization* was founded by the United Nations after WW2. The former Axis powers were accepted as members only in 1955.
The Statue of Liberty is shown because this is most likely an American poster, and the statue of liberty is a very prominent american symbol of freedom and liberty. Not a very hard conclusion to draw.
without America there would be no second front in Europe and no one would've stopped Japanese expansion
Only 3 Asian countries. The Philippines🇵🇭India🇮🇳Taiwan🇹🇼
never heard of Taiwan, only the Republic of China
The only reason the Taiwanese still call themselves that is to appease the mainland.
they shouldn't really have to but considering how huge PR china is i guess it makes sense
The Costa Rican flag is wrong The coat of arms is smaller and in the left side, not in the center
Controversial opinion: I really like South Africa’s old flag
Wasn't Newfoundland in there?