"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , J G Miller
writes
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:15:42 +0000, J G Miller wrote:

Perhaps this poster from 1942 will convince you

And here is another United Nations poster, this one from 1943

http://upload.wikimedia.ORG/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg

I was born during WW2, and therefore was personally affected by its
history (both during and since). However, until yesterday, I've never
heard of the allied forces of that time ever being referred to as "United
Nations". The fact that, in WW2, a group of nations were united in the
fight against Germany and Japan - and occasionally presented themselves as
being the "United Nations" - does not mean that the UN, as an
organisation, existed at that time. In fact, we know it didn't. Any
attempt to argue that WW2 was fought between UN forces and the Axis forces
is simply attempting to re-write history.

However, the Korean war was a different matter. Many still don't know that
(at least officially) 'our' forces were under the control of the UN. I
think this was the first time that they were, as a body, ever involved in
'peacekeeping'.
--
Absolutely. I accept that in 1944 there was an embryonic "United Nations" of
26 nations that had agreed to continue the fight against the Axis powers.
However it is clear that the D-day landings were not discussed and
authorised by these 26 nations, but were planned by the US and UK alone. It
is problable that most of the 26 would have known nothing about the D-day
plans until after it happened. So to call the D-day invasion a "United
Nations" operation is to mislead. Eisenhower's use of the term "united
nations" is a rhetorical flourish, not a claim that an organisation of that
name had authorised, or even been consulted about, the invasion.

As you say, Korea was entirely different. In that case the military action
was authorised by a vote of the UN.

David.