@odd here's my wonder ...

In my mind the first reads the US - supported by the allies, the second the allies, supported by the US

In the case of WWII

It started September 1st 1939

Pearl Harbor - December 1941 and through subsequent declarations by other countries, became fully entrenched in WWII a few days later.

In other words it turned out the war was 1/3 over by the time the US joined and only because it got attacked.

Like yourself - no historian.

Language however is important.

According to Britannica (my bold)

The principal members of the Allies were the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States, and China (the “Big Four”), as well as France while it was unoccupied. The Allies also included every other signatory to the Declaration by United Nations (January 1, 1942): Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, and Yugoslavia. Later wartime signers were Mexico, the Philippines, Ethiopia, Iraq, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Colombia, Liberia, France, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela, Uruguay, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Lebanon.

My problem is that the first sentence was written by an American - and like ourselves - also not an historian, but widely read about other topics - so when he branches out and writes about other stuff - which he just did - his readers, I think, will take away a misunderstanding of history.

Do I care? Not really. Except I do. (Hence this diatribe. ) ... But not much to be done about it. It just pisses me off.

The US were PART of the Allies - despite the fact that so much gets written about 'the US and the allies'.

AND. so much more

/ end rant.

// @fractals