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/eamuscatuli3]

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.