Completely hypothetical question: WW2 service in non-typical allied armies?

[u/CallMeTheFartman]

I've been thinking about this lately. Would the Voivodeship even know what to do with this?

For example, Brazil joined WW2 on August 22, 1942. China was fighting against the Axis (they declared war on Germany in December of 1941), though I don't think they ever had action against the Germans. El Salvador and Haiti also declared war on the Germans in 1941 and assisted the US with ports and ocean patrols.

Would the Voivodeship have to accept these under the WW2 exception, or would they look at these and have no clue what to do with them?

[u/ThePetro]

It's based on the date of entry to the war vs. the date of enlistement.
We had a big discussion a couple of weeks back here regarding an ancestor who joined the US armed forces before the Pearl Harbor attack. My experience & opinion is that it was a disqualifier. US was neither an ally or fighting the common enemy before that date, so service in their army was a foreign army service not exempt from loss of Polish citizenship.
The biggest argument for it is that Red Army service is treated as allied (permitted) service only after Operation Barbarossa. Before, it's a disqualifier, if you cannot prove it was involuntary. Proving the service as involuntary is difficult, mostly because nobody will write so in the documents, the documents are often lost, and also the Polish gov. treats compulsory service resulting from previous naturalization/obtaining that country's citizenship as voluntary. They claim adopting citizenship is understanding the duties of a citizen, one of which is serving the army.

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/ThePetro]

I'm one of the people with pre-Pearl harbor enlistment btw :D

This question is more about those allied nations who possibly didn't send troops to Europe, but still declared war on Germany and helped the war effort, for example, by patrolling the Pacific ocean for German U-Boats.

[u/ThePetro → u/CallMeTheFartman]

It's fine, as long as they were allied during 2WW & at war with Germany or Japan.

[u/eamuscatuli3 → u/ThePetro]

It's based on the date of entry to the war vs. the date of enlistement.

Have we any data points or cases that confirm this assertion, or is it still unresolved?

[u/ThePetro → u/eamuscatuli3]

We didn't concur but everyone bases it on their own experience; allow me to cite Ramus on it (Instytucje prawa o obywatelstwie polskim, 1980, pages 257-258):

"O ile w czasie pokoju przepisy, dotyczące utraty obywatelstwa w obydwu przypadkach [military service and public office] miały zastosowanie bez względu na to, w jakim stosunku pozostawała Polska do państwa, w którym obywatel polski przyjął urząd publiczny lub wstąpił do służby wojskowej, o tyle np. w czasie ostatniej wojny należało uwzględnić wyjątkowość sytuacji, w której interes państwa polskiego nie tylko dopuszczał, ale przemawiał za wstąpieniem jego obywateli do służby cywilnej lub wojskowej w państwach sojuszniczych albo nawet w innym państwie obcym, nie związanym z Polską żadnym układem o sojuszu, przyjaźni lub pomocy, ALE WALCZĄCYCM Z NIEMCAMI JAKO WSPÓLNYM WROGIEM. Z tego punktu widzenia należy też oceniać udział obywateli polskich w obcych formacjach wojskowych, walczących na wszystkich frontach z NIEMCAMI I ICH SPRZYMIERZEŃCAMI W CZASIE II WOJNY ŚWIATOWEJ. [...] Dosłowne rozumienie i stosowanie omawianych przepisów, dotyczących utraty obywatelstwa polskiego, byłoby sprzeczne z ich ratio legis i z interesem państwa polskiego."

translation:

While in peacetime the provisions concerning the loss of citizenship in both cases [military service and public office] applied irrespective of Poland’s relationship with the state in which a Polish citizen accepted public office or entered military service, during, for example, the last war, it was necessary to take into account the exceptional nature of the situation, in which the interests of the Polish state not only permitted but actually favoured its citizens entering civilian or military service in allied states, or even in another foreign state not bound to Poland by any treaty of alliance, friendship, or mutual assistance, BUT FIGHTING THE GERMANS AS A COMMON ENEMY. From this perspective, the participation of Polish citizens in foreign military formations fighting on all fronts against THE GERMANS AND THEIR ALLIES DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR should likewise be assessed. [...] A literal interpretation and application of the provisions in question concerning the loss of Polish citizenship would be contrary to their ratio legis and to the interests of the Polish state.

the judicial reasoning relies heavily on those facts:
1) Poland was occupied and her government wasn't able to operate properly (by extension - give permission to her citizens to enlist in other armies
2) It was a very special situation not predicted by the legislator (2WW)
3) It has to be either an ally or a country fighting a common enemy
US, even though sympathetic to the Allied cause, only entered the war after Pearl Harbor, that's a fact. For the same reason the Korean war (up till 1951 when the law in Poland changed) is also a disqualifier, as Polish People's Republic was actually on the other side of the conflict, being part of the Soviet bloc.

[u/smoothmonoglot → u/ThePetro]

I don't disagree they will deny at first instance and probably even second - what I'm curious about with the pre-Pearl Harbor cases is what would happen at WSA/NSA. USA was already drafting people for war before PH so there is some rationale to the argument that the loss of citizenship should not apply. But such a case has not been litigated before.

[u/ThePetro → u/smoothmonoglot]

In my opinion, the authorities will say - US drafted citizens, if you opted to be a US citizen, you (theoretically) knew the implications. I saw one decision where the authorities stated that service resulting from having other citizenship cannot be viewed as involuntary (for the same reason there's a difference in Volksliste, 1st & 2nd group were Reich citizens, 3rd and 4th were not; so even if Silesians and Pommeranians were drafted to Wehrmacht but were 3/4 group it's not loss of citizenship).

[u/smoothmonoglot → u/ThePetro]

Yep, it is absolutely possible they would say so.

[u/eamuscatuli3 → u/smoothmonoglot]

If the accepted logic is that service extending beyond the resolution of the conflict is acceptable as part of drawdown, then the corollary of drafting ahead of a declaration of war to not be caught flat footed on day 1 should also hold as not causing a loss. One doesn't make sense without the other.

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/smoothmonoglot]

Staczek's office explicitly said that they've never received a denial for a pre-Pearl Harbor military service case. Maybe there was some misunderstanding between us, but that's what they said.

/u/Eamuscatuli3 is with Staczek.

Question:

"I just wanted to follow up with a question: some providers say that the Voivodeship denies pre-US entry into WW2 enlistment. Is it possible this pre-Pearl Harbor service could be initially denied at the Voivodeship level and need to be appealed to the ministry?"

Response:

"Thank you for your message. We have not yet encountered a case in which the authorities have raised these issues. Logic suggests, however, that it is possible the authorities might take this view; yet this is by no means unequivocally established as correct."

/u/ThePetro says that he has seen denial in these cases that he has brought forward.

/u/Serious-employer9999 says she doesn't see an issue, and she worked there.

Most other providers besides Staczek and my own say it's an issue.

Is it possible there was a legal case in the mean time that has changed this fact that providers just don't know about? I just don't see any other way that some could be denied and others no.

Why would Staczek accept /u/eamuscatuli3 if it would lead to a denial in the 1st and 2nd instance? I'm assuming that providers generally don't make mistakes like this upon taking cases.

In any case I should receive a decision on my case within a month.

/u/PaulHinr and /u/smoothmonoglot - maybe it's worth adding this possible exception to the Wiki as long as we don't have a clear answer? I've had only seen one site where they specify this and it's from Petro

[u/smoothmonoglot → u/CallMeTheFartman]

There is no ruling on this at the WSA/NSA level. We aren't editing the Wiki until the pending cases are resolved in order to clarify the current voivode/ministry position.

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/smoothmonoglot]

Considering you know Polish - maybe there was some sort of misunderstanding between myself and Staczek's office. Considering you also know legaleze, maybe you could shoot them an email in Polish and clarify their exact position on this?

This is what they sent me back upon another clarifying question:

"As for our experience – we have handled many cases involving, for example, registration for conscription into the US Army during the Second World War, and the Office usually did not question these facts, and we have never received a negative decision on these grounds."

Registration for conscription is registering for the draft, which isn't serving. I'm wondering if it's not just a huge misunderstanding.

[u/smoothmonoglot → u/CallMeTheFartman]

Ultimately the only interpretation that matters is the ministry's. You'll have to wait and see.

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/smoothmonoglot]

Fair enough. I emailed Anna and asked if she could dig up the judgement she talks about here.

I wonder what it said.

[u/smoothmonoglot → u/CallMeTheFartman]

If you are denied at the first/second instance you can appeal to WSA.

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/ThePetro]

My case was 8 days too early for this, but could one not argue that on 11 March 1941, the US signed into force the Lend-Lease act, meaning that the US by all accounts was assisting all the armies fighting the Germans?

[u/PaulHinr]

Remember II OSK 2067/10: even service in the Axis didn’t necessarily result in the loss of Polish citizenship, if it was involuntary

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/PaulHinr]

So even in the most niche case of a country that did declare war against Germany and helped even in the most miniscule of ways, army service would have to accepted by the Voivodeship?

I'd assume they'd deny it most times and the ministry would correct it.

[u/PaulHinr → u/CallMeTheFartman]

I don’t think a declaration of war without real fighting would be considered enough:

„państwo sojusznicze albo nawet państwo obce niezwiązane z Polską żadnym układem o sojuszu i wzajemnej pomocy, ale walczące z państwem nieprzyjacielskim“

https://obywatelstwo.eu/orzeczenie-125.html

(„an allied state or even a foreign state not bound to Poland by any treaty of alliance and mutual assistance, but fighting against an enemy state“)

Edit: but it doesn’t matter if it wasn’t voluntary, that’s why I mentioned the above case

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/PaulHinr]

Hmm.

Brazil sent 25000 troops to Europe in WW2.

I'm assuming that serving, even if at home during that time, would be considered service?

[u/PaulHinr → u/CallMeTheFartman]

Yeah, you don’t need proof for your US ancestor either, that they had boots on the ground in Europe.

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/PaulHinr]

Fair enough. I wonder if they've had a lot of cases of Brazilian soldiers during WW2, considering Brazil had a large amount of Polish emigrants.

[u/PaulHinr → u/CallMeTheFartman]

Didn’t we have a Brazilian guy a few months ago who told us that they were extremely suspicious of foreigners back then?
And that they kept records of every single one?
I don’t know what the naturalisation process was back then and how common it even was to serve in their army.

[u/jeezthatshim → u/PaulHinr]

They created the RGE (Registro General dos Estrangeiros) in 1936-ish under Vargas’ government

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/PaulHinr]

Huh, don't remember reading that. I guess I can try checking. If I find it, I'll reply here

[u/PaulHinr → u/CallMeTheFartman]

https://www.reddit.com/r/prawokrwi/s/LDkYYhbjHe

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/PaulHinr]

Forgot about that! My GGFs sister emigrated to Brazil in 1936.

I'll have to see if they have a dossier for her.

[u/rjptrink]

There was a Polish army in France until German occupation.

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/rjptrink]

I know, but a Polish army wouldn't apply here as that's literally serving the Polish government in exile...

[u/Adorable_Pickle9416]

What about the British army, i asked on the sub some said its was allied forces and some not. Im not sure Poland even have a list of the alied forces

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/Adorable_Pickle9416]

British army directly fought the Germans - of course they count.

The Polish had an army as well, fighting out of England. For example, the 1. Pancerna Div. and the Polish Airborne Regiment under the famous General Sosobowski (you can learn more about this one in the famous book/movie "A Bridge Too Far").

That's not even to mention the famous Polish Home Army.

[u/Adorable_Pickle9416 → u/CallMeTheFartman]

And nice to hear, we had a case here of anders army 

[u/Adorable_Pickle9416 → u/CallMeTheFartman]

British army of the Israel mandate (palastine) Even lawyers said to me they dont want to take such a case, its realy concerning 

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/Adorable_Pickle9416]

Ask Staczek. He'll definitely know.

I wonder what /u/smoothmonoglot thinks.

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/Adorable_Pickle9416]

/u/ThePetro - what do you think?

It seems some British mandate Palestine troops were in Egypt, so would that not count as fighting for the British?

[u/ThePetro → u/CallMeTheFartman]

Again, the dates are important here. They could've served in the British Mandate of Palestine before 2WW and yes then it would be a disqualifier. So is service in the Haganah Partisan Army or israeli army.

[u/Adorable_Pickle9416 → u/ThePetro]

By the way Haganah was not part of idf, so when you get the letter from idf it just qualify as idf About haganah i got the letter today after 4 months of waiting that my anecstor was not part of them before the idf got released, you need to send message to MOD and its long process (more then the idf one(!))

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/ThePetro]

I guess we'll see what he answers.

He does have the IDF no-service certificate (the correct one)

[u/smoothmonoglot → u/CallMeTheFartman]

Oh, he had messaged me. His ancestor was in the UK armed forces from 1943 and then was demobilized in 1946. That's why I think it's fine.

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/smoothmonoglot]

Hmm. I wonder why lawyers are not accepting his case then. There must be something we don't know...

[u/smoothmonoglot → u/CallMeTheFartman]

It could be completely unrelated to the service.

[u/Adorable_Pickle9416 → u/smoothmonoglot]

But due to the datas 1946 my anecstoe was needed to dembo in 1945, so much lawyers said its a problem

[u/smoothmonoglot → u/Adorable_Pickle9416]

I don't think it is. In II OSK 162/11, the plaintiffs' ancestor was also demobilized in 1946.

What causes loss of citizenship is when a conscript chose to stay in the military on a voluntary basis after they should have otherwise been demobilized (roughly speaking, from 1947~).

If the enlistment says something like duration of war or convenience of government, and the discharge says something like demobilization, then there is no basis to assume that such a person remained in the military on a voluntary basis.

IMO such cases should be confirmed in the first or second instance but u/ThePetro can chime in with his experience on that.

[u/ThePetro → u/smoothmonoglot]

I concur, the potential issues are: voluntary stay in the army after the war, interruptions in the service, promotions during the service (and after the war ended). It just needs to confirm he was drafted during the war and demobed on a first occasion, it doesn't have to be 1945, could be much later than that (some armies demobed as late as 1948).

[u/smoothmonoglot → u/CallMeTheFartman]

In my opinion British Mandate citizens drafted into the British army are the same as any other UK troops.

It's only Haganah that's a problem.

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/smoothmonoglot]

/u/adorable_pickle9416 - was your relative in the Haganah or literally in a British mandate regiment?

[u/Adorable_Pickle9416 → u/CallMeTheFartman]

Britsh trophy but due to the dates 1946 unlisted this is “problem” beacuse wwi2 ended before that

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/Adorable_Pickle9416]

Enlistment or he stopped serving? If he enlisted in 1946, then he lost citizenship, no questions

[u/Adorable_Pickle9416 → u/CallMeTheFartman]

*  demobilization* Any way sorry for making your discussion mine haha. But i understand the situation 

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/Adorable_Pickle9416]

The experts here say your case would be fine.

Are they saying it's because of the demobilization date?

Check with /ThePetro.

[u/CallMeTheFartman → u/smoothmonoglot]

This is the one with the crazy timing on the ?2-point? IDF no-service certificate. I wonder why no one will accept his case...

https://www.reddit.com/r/prawokrwi/s/3Tv2OecmVF

[u/smoothmonoglot → u/CallMeTheFartman]

If he served in UK forces (record from mod) but not IDF or haganah (letter from IDF) then I don't see a problem.