Talk:Axis powers/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Requested move 29 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, almost unanimity (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Axis powers → Axis Power – I have no particular rationale for Axis Power, I just prefer it. That being said, just pick one between the two options, please. The capitalization in this article is confusing. Fumiko Take (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Fumiko Take: Please add some rationale to your request. Though, with this said, I support moving this to Axis Powers. (with the s and caps) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is not just one axis power. Billboard Man (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – The current lowercase/plural powers is the only one that makes sense. See books n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Axis powers" (or "the Axis powers") is the form commonly found in source material. The nominator's rationale does not outweigh this. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There was never such a thing as "Axis Power", as it consisted of several countries with all their own - and sometimes conflicting - agendas. And the sources usually mention those countries as "Axis powers". The Banner talk 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further thoughts and questions on Romania

First of all, why when Romania helps Germany win a battle its an "Axis victory", but when talking about the Axis itself Romania is almost never mentioned? Why when Germany aids another country it is notable (sometimes to the point of being central topic, despite German involvement being little) but when Germany receives help from others it's negligible or barely mentioned? Why the main argument to keep Romania in the "little bunch" is the fact that Germany did not discuss sharing of the world with Romania, while discussion is nearly nothing compared to actual on-the-field military involvement, which Romania very much did? Why is Romania called "an unimportant member of the Axis", while it led operations, took important/hero cities, led army groups and had it's own occupied Soviet territories? Why diplomatic and political talk with the other main 2 Axis leaders is more important than the military consultation and discussions Hitler had with Romania's leader alone, of all foreign allies? Why Romania's ascension into the Axis hierarchy after the surrender of Italy is never mentioned or adressed? Is the puppet Italian state, with a navy smaller than Bulgaria's, more important than a sovereign and committed ally like Romania, which effectively dethroned Italy as the third Axis country by the end of 1943? And finally, why is Romania's section in this article so almost insultingly short? It genuinely looks like the editor was like: "Meh, I'll just write the essence, not much details, who's gonna care anyway?" Well, I care. Conclusion: I do not mean to say Romania was one of "the big ones", but at the same time, putting Romania in the same bunch with all the "lesser" German allies, after all it achieved, is also inaccurate. And one final question: Can I please be allowed to edit Romania's section? I can expand it greatly, all is sourced from books and I will make no unsourced assertion. I really do care about improving the section, and thus I request permission to edit it. 82.77.76.94 (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Romania is where it belongs, a minor member of the Axis i.e. not Germany, Italy or Japan. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Britmax (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I still improve the section? As I said, I got surces and all. A bit more detail on the country's leader and it's industrial and military capacities should do good 82.77.76.94 (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Please check my edit, I'd like to know what you think of it. 82.77.76.94 (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a genuine question: Why is this segregation between "major" and "minor" necessary? What benefits does it bring to anyone? 82.77.76.94 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Question for the OP: are they in any way associated with User:Romanian-and-proud? K.e.coffman (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Why? 82.77.76.94 (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Because this conversation seems similar to this one Talk:Black_Sea_campaigns_(1941–44)#IP edits and some of the IPs seem close in range to 82.77.76.94. If this is not the same editor, then I suggest registering for an account so that such questions do not arise. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow...what a troll. Speaking of questions though, mine was still not answered: why is the segregation between "major" and "minor" powers necessary? In my opinion, it does nothing productive for anyone, it may encourage people to not even read about the "minor" countries because the term makes them seem negligible and ignorable. And I have personal experience with that, I have met people interested in WW2 that did not even know Romania participated in the war, ~1 million soldiers, dozens of battles, they weren't aware of any of that. 82.77.76.94 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Pls see WP:NOTAFORUM. Recommend again registering for an account. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, why is Wikipedia so anti-originality? I don't get it. 82.77.76.94 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a collection of existing information, and as such is not the place for "originality". Please find a forum or a blog if that is the way you wish to go. Britmax (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sock of banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Axis Powers, not Axis powers Every book I've ever read on World War II calls the alliance the Axis Powers. Germany, Italy and Japan were all major powers. (Lsnkd (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)) Source? Britannica, dictionary.com lower case, New World Dictionary upper case. Seems to be some of each. No wp:consensus Jim1138 (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC) In that case it might be better to use both "Axis Powers" and "Axis powers" in the lede. I've never heard of anyone using the "Central powers", only the Central Powers. (Lsnkd (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)) Is "axis powers" a proper noun? If so, it should be "Axis Powers". I see that Allience and Allied Powers (disambiguation) uses or gives an alternate name "Allied Powers" in caps. Perhaps the article should be moved to Axis Powers. I see it was previously moved from Axis Powers here Jim1138 (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sock of banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Italy Was Italy really non-belligerent in 1939-40? Italian harbours were used to import materials for the German war effort throughout this time, so much that Britain and France seriously considered making a pre-emptive strike on Italian forces in Libya. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:1CA1:57EC:6ACB:EC24 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)) You may be right. What sources would you suggest in this context? /Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Frank Joseph covered the Anglo-French attempts to provoke Italy into war on pages 49-50 of his 2010 book "Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa and Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45". (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:1CA1:57EC:6ACB:EC24 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)) This Frank Joseph? Is there maybe one or a pair of good quotes that could be put into the template:cite book? /Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC) The fact that the writer may have been a controversial figure doesn't mean his book isn't accurate. Italy was not neutral at the beginning of World War II, and it was always obvious that Mussolini was going to officially join the war on Germany's side. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:1CA1:57EC:6ACB:EC24 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC))

Spanish involvement sector

The following contents were added by me over Spanish involvement, then removed by Britmax citing Facebook should not be used as RS: 1. Blue Squadron 2. Kriegsmarine U-boats operating in Spain 3. Spanish vessels and crews employed to supply DAK Of these, only 3rd is sourced from Facebook, while others are not. So, I've decided to recover the deleted contents. For the 3rd issue, it was also mentioned in the book Tanker und Versorger der deutschen Flotte which has photos of 2 of the Spanish freighters used, however I can't remember the pages. 120.21.67.64 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Spain was on the same side as Germany and Italy from 1940 to 1944. It shouldn't be shown in grey on the map. Franco even described Spain as part of the Axis in official documents. (86.180.135.186 (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC))

Puppet state vs goverment

@Peacemaker67: For example Hellenic State on it's article is refered to as a puppet government but is refered to as a state. NDH and Hellenic State were regimes instituted by the axis forces after land occupation, for example and are puppet states for they have puppet governments. How was Government of National Salvation not a state while it had a puppet government with defined borders? They even had a Serbian State Guard ....... 108.54.93.183 (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It is explained in full with copious reliable sources in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. The GNS was just a puppet regime, the academic consensus is that German occupied Serbia was not a puppet state, it was an occupied territory. I am not familiar with the Hellenic State, but occupation systems throughout Europe varied wildly. The State Guard was authorised and controlled by the Germans for most of its existence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I don't deny the sources or articles. I was undoing an unexplained edit from an anonymous IP who changed it from Serbian State to begin with without stating why. Using the articles, I was mainly comparing the Government of National Salvation with the Hellenic State being that both articles referred to them as puppet governments. And when looking up Puppet Governments, I am redirected to Puppet States. So Government of National Salvation was more of a German State then. Though still full of Serbian collaborators. But weren't all Client States instituted after Axis invasions under German auspices though, Specifically the Balkans?

Although, I have yet to see Serbian State as the official name of that territory in any literature, where as Hellenic State was. So you seem in the right. Should go by the official name then. 108.54.93.183 (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This is so inaccurate

If you are to write the list of Axis powers you cannot list Vichy France or Serbia in that list and I would assume for more examples. It is as one would say that India was part of Allies. If country chose Allies side, lose the war, lose lots of its terrines, experience direct genocide and then is forces to accept imposed government than such a nation and morally and factually should be left out of that list. You can make separate list with occupied territories and puppet governments.

Examples: Albania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, ... on that list were clear allies. Now some went way along Hitler some tried to just do minimum.. Greece, Serbia, France, Norway... were invaded, thus putting them in the same list is idiotic

Croatia, did not have puppet government. Puppet gov. is the one imposed. Ante Pavelic had huge support in Croatia, and previous leadership of Kingdom of Yugoslavia was not quite popular. Thus Croatia was not occupied. It exercised similar autonomy as Hungary e.g. during German domination of Europe, quite different to France, Norway, Serbia or Greece.

Though reputation of Wikipedia is subjected to mockery, you should really put some effort in making it serious for your reach is huge and unfortunately many people are getting their facts from this, however disgraceful is what you do

129.192.10.2 (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Each of the listed "entities" is dealt with separately depending on their status. Some were invaded and occupied (Norway, France), others joined the Axis freely (Bulgaria and Romania), others were effectively created by the Axis with occupation forces that propped them up from the very beginning (Croatia and Slovakia). Others weren't even states, but occupied territories (Serbia).They are treated differently for a reason, and that is because the reliable sources treat them differently. And I suggest you register an account. Unregistered IPs are a dime a dozen in the WWII area, if you want to be taken seriously, create an account where your edit history can be looked at by others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Axis powers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005449
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816205702/http://navalhistory.dk/Danish/Historien/1939_1945/dk_efter29august.htm to http://www.navalhistory.dk/danish/Historien/1939_1945/dk_efter29august.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.danforce.dk/article/articleview/2/1/1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Serbia

I have removed Serbia from this article. In no respect was Serbia a client state of Germany. It was an occupied territory with a puppet government which had almost no real power, it wasn't recognised as a state even by the minor Axis satellites. No source I am aware of refers to it as a client state. It just doesn't belong in this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67:. Norman Davies considers it one here.

(Hohum ^@) 18:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that Norman Davies is anywhere near the academic consensus on this issue. Historians who have examined this issue in detail, such as Lemkin, Tomasevich, Pavlowitch, Milazzo and others refer to it by a number of different means, see the Names section of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. For starters, it wasn't a state, it was an occupied territory (as noted by Lemkin, an authority on Nazi-occupied Europe), and remained so (with a puppet government that was just an instrument of the occupation regime), until October 1944. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Tricky situation. What are specifically the differences between this Serbian regime and the Norwegian Quislin regime? The Banner talk 09:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The differences may actually appear fairly semantic on first glance, but ultimately I think you're asking the wrong question. For background, firstly, the borders of Norway were not changed, Yugoslavia was partitioned and parcelled out to the Axis powers, with the German occupied territory of Serbia being a mere fragment of the prior country whose borders did not correspond to any previous Yugoslav or Serbian state or even internal division. Secondly, Norway was under dual German administration, with a primary civil authority (the Reichskommissariat Norwegen), and a Military Commander in Norway, both of whom ultimately worked to Hitler, whereas the German occupied territory of Serbia was controlled only by the military. But ultimately, neither Norway nor Serbia were ever members of the Axis, or even client states with any real existence as separate from their German overseers. Both were occupied territories, and remained so until liberated. They had puppet governments, they weren't puppet states like the Independent State of Croatia. Ultimately we work on what the reliable sources say, and as far as I know, Davies is the only source referring to Serbia as a "client state". Frankly, I think this article has become the victim of "mission creep", and needs to be limited to those powers that actually acceded up to the Tripartite Pact, without getting into the disputed territory of what constitutes a "client state". At best, it should be limited to only those "client states" that the academic consensus agrees on, and Serbia just isn't going to be in that group. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning. I agree with the removal on this basis - indeed, the article does seem to sprawl in general. (Hohum ^@) 16:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. It is now clear to me and I agree. The Banner talk 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Free City of Danzig

Given that the Free City of Danzig Police aided the Germans during the Invasion of Poland, specifically at Westerplatte and the Defence of the Polish Post Office in Danzig, does the state merit a section?Capt Jim (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Norway

How on Earth did you decide not to include Norway in the main list at the top of the page? I know it's mentioned later in the article, but it needs to be added at the top as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.12.126 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Joining the "Major Axis Powers" and "Minor Axis Powers" sections into just "Axis"

This has troubled me for quite a while, and I think it's time to speak out about it. You see, most readers are rather careless about details. They see "Major Axis Powers" they go "Oh, better check these guys out", then they see the "minors" and go "Meh, who cares about them". ...No. That is wrong, on SO many levels! Beginning with Hungary pretty much sowing the seeds for the creation of the Axis through its prime minister, Gyula Gombos, to Romania pretty much making the Eastern Front, the greatest front of the war, able to happen. Through the oil it provided, through the hundreds of thousands of troops that fought in many major battles and enabled the Germans to maintain a continuous line on such a massive front. Hungary did that too, but to a lesser extent. You type "Axis Powers" in Google Images, most pictures are about the top 3, the "Major" ones. I do not find it acceptable, that 7-8 decades after the war, with all this wealth of information being one click away, to see this happen. Thus, I propose that the sections be merged. Let the reader decide who did how much. Because as it is now, it really does encourage ignorance. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps they would better termed the founding powers, as they created the Tripartite Pact, and the other acceded to it afterwards. However, in terms of their military contribution, Germany and Japan, and to a lesser extent Italy, dwarfed the others. But ultimately we should refer to them based on what they are called in reliable sources. I don't have that info in front of me right now, but I think a change would need an examination of the literature first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

See, the thing with the current terming is that it has very dismissive undertones. When someone sees "Major" they check it out, when they see "Minor", they shrug and ignore it. I don't think the subsequent signatories of the Pact deserve this, particularly Romania and Hungary, whose actions were decisive to some extent. There were varied differences between the three big members too, but at the core, they and the "minors" are the same: sovereign state signatories of the Tripartite Pact. Alas, if not merging them, I would suggest renaming them to "Tripartite Pact founding members" and "Subsequent signatories of the Tripartite Pact" respectively. Or something along those lines. I do believe it would be fairer. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I would support re-naming the sections to "Original Tripartite powers" and "Accessionary Tripartite powers" (or something). Yugoslavia should be removed: it was never an Axis power. Thailand did not sign the Tripartite Pact and should be in the same section as Finland (co-belligerents). Iraq should be somewhere else, since it was not a co-belligerent in the same sense as Thailand and Finland. Slovakia and Croatia were the only puppet states that could be described as Axis powers. The question of "fairness" does not enter into it; historical accuracy and systematic bias do. Srnec (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Independent State of Croatia was not an Axis power but a subordinate to Axis powers Germany anf Italy. It is laugable to group it with Hungary, an actual axis power. That is not historically accurate or fair, but almost POV pushing. OyMosby (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It was a state that acceded to the Tripartite Pact, as the infobox states. Srnec (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, but that was not what I meant to take umbridge with. I mentioned that if accuracy is the end goal, it should be stated if thebstate is a puppet state or part of the main Axis powers. To which Independent State of Croatia and Slovakia State were puppets states. It should at least be a sub-catagory under acceded to the Tripartite Pact section. What says you, @Peacemaker67: ? I agree that readers can be lazy and take things at face value, hence readers will assume all those listed under acceded to Tripartite were on the same level of power or formed the same way. Some were installed puppet states, others such as Nazi Germany and Kingdom of Hungary, were not. So if making it clear for the reader is the concern, it is absolutely not addressed.OyMosby (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I did do an edit on the matter. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Srnec about the "fairness" issue, but believe that Yugoslavia should remain, as it acceded. However, I also think the changed headings are fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

My rationale regarding removing Yugoslavia is that "Axis powers" is not the same as "Tripartite Pact powers". Yes, Yugoslavia was, very briefly, part of the Tripartite Pact. But Finland and Thailand never were and they were far more important to the war as allies of the original three powers. The Yugoslav gov't that signed the pact had nothing to do with the Axis war effort at any point. If the def'n in the first line is correct—"nations that fought in World War II against the Allied forces"—then I don't see how Yugoslavia belongs, even for two days. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to rationalize the infobox somewhat. The first three sections are well-defined—"Original Tripartite Pact powers", "States that acceded to the Tripartite Pact" and "Co-belligerent states", where the last category indicates internationally-recognised sovereign states. I have completely revamped the old "Client states" section, which was a mash-up of non-states (the Government of National Unity (Hungary) was a government, not a state), non-clients (Vichy France was technically in a state of war with Germany and Italy) and states whose connection to the war effort of the Axis seems tenuous at best (Laos, no article). Now it is a list of "Puppet governments". Srnec (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Austria

Please revise the article as concerns Austria. Austria was not a neutral country in WW2. Austrians fought alongside Nazis and welcomed them with cheers, A plebiscite ended with more than 95% of population agreeing Austria to join Axis Powers. Austria should not be allowed to play the game of hypocrisy, because victim of the Nazis, it was more a complacent. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.75.194 (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you tell me where it is stated in the article that "Austria would be a neutral country"? Austria was not even a country in WW2, since earlier it became part of Germany.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC))

I found two "gems" on Google Books

Alright you guys, I found two book sources on Google Books which state that Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were major/principal Axis countries. In the link for each source, it is the one at the very top of the page:

Number 1: https://www.google.ro/search?biw=1536&bih=759&tbm=bks&ei=TadBW5KII8WawATuv5HQCw&q=+Romania%2C+Bulgaria%2C+and+Hungary+were+the+other+principal+Axis+powers.+See+also+axis+strategy+and+cooperation&oq=+Romania%2C+Bulgaria%2C+and+Hungary+were+the+other+principal+Axis+powers.+See+also+axis+strategy+and+cooperation&gs_l=psy-ab.3...20046.22223.0.23075.2.2.0.0.0.0.0.0..1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0.0...257.HU677I0sjdU Number 2: https://www.google.ro/search?biw=1536&bih=759&tbm=bks&ei=1KdBW9jfHZDykwWC556gDg&q=Powers+Germany+and+Italy+formed+the+%22Rome-Berlin+Axis.%22+Japan+allied+with+them+in+1940.+Romania%2C+Bulgaria%2C+and+Hungary+were+other+principal+countries&oq=Powers+Germany+and+Italy+formed+the+%22Rome-Berlin+Axis.%22+Japan+allied+with+them+in+1940.+Romania%2C+Bulgaria%2C+and+Hungary+were+other+principal+countries&gs_l=psy-ab.3...12039.14729.0.15648.31.12.0.0.0.0.106.750.8j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..29.0.0.0...75.tkK9NNXADrg

Now, I intend to use these two, but I am not sure of the best course of action: include the 3 countries into the "major" sections with the Big Three, both in the article and in the infobox, or make separate sections for them (something like "Other major Axis Powers"), also both in the article and the infobox? Either way we'd have to see what we do with Yugoslavia, which would remain alone. Maybe out it in the "controversial cases" section. What do you guys think? Torpilorul (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

skip the second book (it's self-published by a high school teacher who is an author of children's books) -- The OXFORD book is **** (I'm an author in it) but the "article" cited is meaningless -- it's very short & has a half sentence on Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary combined. Instead read the long articles on those three countries. they say "minor" ( p 170) , "puppet" (551) and "overpowered by Hitler" "Very inadequately armed" and "were massacred" (p 957-58) Rjensen (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Darn. Well I haven't seen those. You know how it is with Google Books, it can show you snippets or at most a few pages. Although I resent some of those terms. More specifically "puppet" (I sincerely hope in its paragraph it applies to Hungary after Sept 1944, and not Romania), "overpowered by Hitler" is hardly the case in Romania's case, Antonescu and Carol II before him used oil to keep Germany mostly in check. I'd also remove the "very". Anyway, good thing I posted on the talk before going on with the edit. It would've been a blunder. Thankyou. Torpilorul (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop your excuses, Torpilorul. You were trying to put in a private opinion based on quick sand and you are caught red handed. The editwarring is of no use. The Banner talk 07:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Tripartite

Srnec, I agree with you that the other states jointed the original 3 members of the Tripartite pact, but they did not sign identical Tripartite pact agreements, they were different in nature, these subsequent agreements were drafted on a case by case basis, and had different levels of commitment than what the original Tripartite pact members agreed to. Key word (Tripartite) relates to the number 3 only. In other words it was not like joining the Warsaw Pact or Nato where members are all equal, these were separate agreements. --E-960 (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Those countries were affiliates of the Tripartite pact not members of the Tripartite pact.--E-960 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• They were precisely what the heading said they were: "States that acceded to the Tripartite Pact". As it stand, nothing indicates what "affiliate" means. In this case, it means signed an adherenced to the Tripartite Pact. We do not say that they were Tripartite Pact powers themselves, but that they had adhered to the pact, which is exactly what they thought and said they were doing. If you have a better word than "acceded", let's hear it, but plenty of RS use "accede" and "adhere". And mere "affiliate" is hardly clarifying. Thailand and Finland were affiliates too. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Srnec, can we stop using this ambiguous langague, you turned these Infobox titles into entire phrases. Really, can we use simple language? --E-960 (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Your language is not clear. My language is unambiguous. What on earth is hard about this? I object to 'affiliate' because (a) sources don't use it, (b) it is inexact, not applying to Yugoslavia at all, and (c) it is too general, Finland was obviously an 'affiliate' of the Tripartite Powers and was treated as such by the Allies. No, that specific section of the infobox is devoted to precisely and only those states that signed protocols of adherence/adhesion/accession to the Tripartite Pact, whether they were puppet states (Slovakia) or not (Hungary), whether they stayed on board (Croatia) or not (Yugoslavia), whether they were at war with the USSR (Romania) or not (Bulgaria). It excludes full-fledged Axis powers like Finland and Thailand because they did not sign protocols of adherence to the pact. Srnec (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I just noteced the most recent edits. They had to do with an IP removing Kigdom of Yugoslavia from the infobox list of Tripartite pact signitories. Technically, prince Paul did signed it, but only two days later there was a coup détat and the sucessor, Peter II, turned down the pact and from exile conducted resistance to Axis powers that in meantime invaded Yugoslavia preciselly because new royal regime was against adhering to the pact.

This means that including Yugoslavia is highly missleading, and any uninformed reader by seing Yugoslavia listed there will most certainly make a highly wrong conclusion. Yugoslav involvement in the war was by all means pro-Allied and anti-Axis. No bullet or any pro-Axis effort was ever done by anyone representing "Yugoslavia". Both monarchists and communists involved in the war with ultimate goal to liberate the country from Axis occupiers. Even Prince Pauls signing of the pact was in order to spare Yugoslavia form being involved into the war, rather than helping Axis powers.

The infobox would gain in clarity if we listed the countries that fought on Axis side and were active in providing support for Axis side. By that I mean that the current formula used in infobox is not the best and is missleading. I would suppport a change that would make the list have an inclusion criterium clearer in regard of listing Axis powers and their active allies. FkpCascais (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is another issue. The info box used to differentiate which states were complicit on there own and which ones were installed puppet states. The lines are blurred and now puppet states are listed as if they were states that existed before and simply allied to the Axis powers. Also Yugoslavia was never fully integrated into the Tripartite. OyMosby (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The Slovak and Croatian states of the infobox were complicit on their own. Nor were they "installed" by Germany or Italy. They are listed only as states that signed the Tripartite Pact, which they were. No implication is made about their prior status. Whether the inclusion of Yugoslavia is misleading or not depends a lot on whether you think of the Axis as a network of states with formal bonds or as a side in a fight. It isn't just Yugoslavia. Japan was a member of the Tripartite Pact and not at war with anybody prior to December 1941, and not at war with the Soviet Union prior to August 1945. Bulgaria was not at war until December 1941 and also not with the Soviets except formally for a few days in September 1944. Should we say that Japan was not an Axis member prior to December 1941? Srnec (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, they were. For example, upon Axis forces annexing Yugoslav territory, Axis forces found suitors to run a Puppet State established in the territory. The Ustase organization was eager to volunteer. Subservient to both Germany and Italy. As explained and sourced in it's respective article. The Slovak Republic, again, as simply stated and sourced in it's respective article, was formed into a Puppet State under German control. I did not say they were resistant, but that they were not previously existing nations that joined forces like Hungary or Bulgaria. It should at least state, under the State that signed the Tripartite agreement, a heading where Puppet States are listed as used to be the case before. Hungary was not a Puppet State, however. I did not say to no mention they were signed in at all, beforehand. OyMosby (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the NDH government wasn't "installed". It was engineered by Veesenmayer, was only able to take power in Zagreb due to the German invasion and occupation, and was an Italo-German quasi-protectorate (according to Tomasevich). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! The other user seems to be POV pushing. And being that it was an installed state, a puppet state, it should be listes as such. If accuracy is the end goal, it should be stated if the state is a puppet state or part of the main Axis powers. To which Independent State of Croatia and Slovakia State were puppets states. It should at least be a sub-catagory under acceded to the Tripartite Pact section. Otherwise it is implied that they are on level for example the Kingdom of Hungary. OyMosby (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hard to accept that things change, I guess

You know, I truly find this very distasteful. Whenever I complain, they tell me "well, probably sources to back up your claims will come over time". Well looks like in this case that "over time" is right now. The three sources are all from the past 2 years. And ofcourse two of them echo the other, this is how it always is, but it's never been an issue with older sources (double standard much?). The two extra sources validate the initial one. Also convincing of the acceptance of Deletant's opinion/assertion as mainstream is the fact that the two extra sources which echo it have as publishers the prestigious and reliable Cambridge University Press and Bloomsbury Publishing. My biggest fear is that is nothing more but utter bias against Romania, rejecting 3 perfectly reliable book sources with access links (I'm pretty sure you really can't do better than this in terms of source quality), but I'll try to reason. Biggest problem seems to be with the infobox. I am willing to make concessions in this case: Romania gets no separate section and no native name at the top, but keeps "de facto major ally" in brackets in the "Other states" section, and also becomes the first entry in the section due to its special status. At the article section, I'm willing to keep it alphabetically, as I've just noticed it's also the case with the major section (Japan comes after Italy), but again, "de facto major ally" in brackets next to its name. I still find absolutely no reason to delete the other two sources, for the reasons stated in the first half of this mini-rant. Torpilorul (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate what the headings are. We establish a consensus on that, and this is not a horse trade. While you attempt to achieve that consensus, I suggest you add the information about Romania being considered by some sources as a major ally in the existing section on Romania. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not dictating anything, I'm merely stating what the sources say. And since when does the Wiki consensus hold bigger sway than reliable and verifiable source material? "On the Wiki we don't build, we follow." or something like that. Torpilorul (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Torpilorul, the headings are completely accurate as it stands. Was Romania not one of the "Subsequent signatories of the Tripartite Pact"? Was she not one of the "States that [later] adhered to the Tripartite Pact"? You are the one who introduced a new category not based on fact but on a judgement call. Should we break out Italy from the original three signatories because she was not as powerful as Germany or Japan? This isn't about the text or the sourcing. This is about the headings and the infobox: about how the information is structured and presented. Your sources were fine (although the citation of Deletant was mishandled; I fixed it). "De facto major Axis ally" is a made-up category. The current layout puts the powers in objectively-defined categories. As for the order, that can be debated. I have no strong feelings about ordering the powers within the categories alphabetically (current TOC), or by date of accession (current infobox) or by strength of contribution (which would indeed put Romania first). Currently the TOC and the infobox are not consistent Srnec (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, mate, but she was a special subsequent signatory. She was literally stated to be on a par with Italy in terms of contributions, none other raises to that. Maybe it's just me at the end of the day, but I still think that this should be somehow reflected in the infobox/section. If anything, I guess I'll just have to be content with having Romania first under the "Big 3" for now. Anyway, at least I can use these 3 nice torpedoes (the 3 sources) to shove Romania into some contexts regarding only the major Axis Powers, I can make the argument that Romania is fitting to be there too because she was rated "on a par with Italy", and...I'm grateful for that. Torpilorul (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You will not last long here with this attitude. One historian has said she was on a par with Italy. That is all. Did any Romanians fight outside of Romania or the Soviet Union (on the side of the Axis)? Italy had submarines in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans, had airplanes over Britain, sent boats to Lake Ladoga and the Black Sea, fought on land in North and East Africa from Tunisia to Kenya, invaded Greece on her own accord, participated in the invasions of France, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, not to mention her naval, aerial and land warfare on her own territory and waters. She built most of her own ships, planes, tanks and firearms to her own designs. She was, in short, a great power, although the weakest of them. (Notably, perhaps, Italy is still a member of the G7.) Deletant's statement, if true, is true for only a very short window. Of course, between September 1943 and August 1944 Romania was more important than Italy to the Axis, but then Hungary was more important after August 1944. Srnec (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You are (mostly) right. But here's the thing with Romania. It's got some of the attributes you mentioned, albeit in smaller quantities. That is to say, other Axis members didn't at all. I'd most likely stick to "She built most of her own ships, planes, tanks and firearms to her own designs.", you do realize this applies to Romania too, right? Just to a smaller extent. And not to, say, Hungary, Bulgaria or Thailand (Hungary mostly yes, no ships though). Finland yes, but that's not really an Axis, right? Romania also had its very own tiny "colony". But most importantly: it had independent military achievements and led Axis operations sometimes. And if that can be mentioned, in an article about Axis operations, why wouldn't it be fair or fitting if it was mentioned? Because of "Muh Axis trinity" do you think it's fair to deprive Romania of its merits? Hypothetically, what if someone made a list of Axis destroyers, with all the hundreds of destroyers of the Axis, but specifically left out Romania's 4 destroyers because, again, "muh Axis trinity". Just...why? He'd be very close to doing a nice complete job, but fall short of just 4 vessels because he'd be too stuck-up to finish the job. Frankly...that'd be just stupid. The "Axis trinity" has done enormous harm to Romania's memory. It basically implies: "these 3 matter, the rest don't", which is factually incorrect about Romania, not to mention insulting. And about being on par with Italy...I didn't actually want this. It's the fault of you guys in the West, because of your strict and perennial segregation between country titles: "major" and "minor", regardless of actual merits. I'd be elated if Romania would be accepted as a special middle ground. But it's not, it's in black and white, either major or minor. I didn't really want to do this, I didn't want Romania to stick out by being compared to other countries, but on its own merits. But I had to do it, because YOU GUYS WON'T SEE US OTHERWISE!! Torpilorul (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

British historian Dennis Deletant asserted that, due to its crucial contributions to the Axis war effort, the Kingdom of Romania was a major ally of the Axis on a par with Italy instead of a minor Axis satellite. Followed by a clear POV-rant here. Funny. But can we then discuss the major effort of the Romanian Army during Operation Uranus to facilitate the defeat of the Axis at Stalingrad? The Banner talk 08:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletant is fine as a source (and has been incorporated into the narrative appropriately), but Torpilorul has been blocked for a number of things, including socking. So don't lose too much sleep over his POV pushing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Protective Treaty

Hi @AHC300:, could you tell to what refers the "Protective Treaty" you added to the infobox (it's blank)? Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC))

Italian Social Republic

The Italian Social Republic flag has been added to the Tripartite Pact signatories . Putting it simply, is this right? Should this entity be on the list and if so, should it be that far up? Britmax (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the flag there should be that of the kingdom. Srnec (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I am asking whether this short lived Republic should be listed with the three major Axis members. Britmax (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I separated the RSI and Kingdom of Italy and put the RSI in the puppet states category. The from/after 1943 should give indicate the connection. I otherwise suggest maybe having the RSI directly under Kingdom of Italy in the "tripartite powers" with the from/after 1943 and a [note] explaining that the RSI was a german puppet state. OR simply returning it to the way it was before (Kingdom of Italy (after 1943, the Italian Social Republic)) --Havsjö (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Srnec: So how do y'all feel about separating the Kingdom/RSI with a from/after 1943 and note? They are after all quite distinct entities (their "status" in the world, the kingdom vs republic, the "real country" vs puppet state etc) which could use some separation in the list. Of course with a note or some kind of indication of its status as both "successor" to Kingdom of Italy in the eyes of the axis and its status as a puppet state. I am not against the current version, but I feel it looses some clarity "what" exactly the RSI is, but I am interested in counter arguments / opinions --Havsjö (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Puppet governments

@Havsjö and The Banner: What about removing the puppet governments from the infobox? After all, what are the criteria of a list that includes the Protectorate of Albania, Manchukuo, Azad Hind and Vichy France? Srnec (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No list would be better than a confusing, illogical one with unfamiliar names for states/regimes. The Banner talk 22:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the list of puppets should be included, since although they are not really "real countries", they had thousands of men fighting "for them" (or at least as part of them) as part of the axis (in some way or another) against various allied powers, which would be bad to not include.
I cannot understand, however, why it is so vehemently insisted that specifically Vichy France (even being listed at "V" for Vichy rather than "F" for France) and the Quisling Regime should have these "nicknames" (common as they may be) in a list where literally every single country/state in the very same list is listed with its official name (including several which also has an alternate, more common "nicknames" (such as Nedic's Regime (Government of National Salvation of Serbia), Wang Jingwei Regime (Reorganized Nationalist Government of China), Manchukuo (Empire of Manchuria), Salo Republic (Italian Social Republic). It makes absolutely no sense why only Vichy and Quisling regimes should have these names and is very inconsistent. Since the only mention of these puppets in the list is also a link to their respective article, it should not very confusing. --Havsjö (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps because Vichy France and Quisling regime are the common names and the article names. in fact, it makes absolutely no sense to hide the widely known name behind the official name, especially when it leads to confusion. The Banner talk 10:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the list of puppet states altogether. The misleading and confusing names were already back. The Banner talk 19:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not opposed to keeping a list of puppet governments, but we should have clear criteria. "Vichy" France was universally accepted by all as just France, at first. The Nedic regime, on the other hand, was not a state but a government of an occupied territory. For now, I support removal. Srnec (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Problem with puppets here is that list has gotten too long. It should really only include those that were formally regarded as independent states. Manchukuo is a good example, Japan at least formally pretended to treat it as an independent state, it had some limited armed forces, and even a few diplomatic recognitions. On other hand Quisling regime is a clear example of one that should not be included, it was merely a local self-administration under Reichskommissariat Norwegen, even Germans didn't grant it as recognition of independent state. There were whole lot of such local self-administrations under German occupation areas like Belarusian Central Council, Lokot Autonomy, Belgian Committee of Secretaries-General etc.--Staberinde (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Are there any European puppet states that meet that description other than Croatia and Slovakia, who are included under the second heading because they acceded to the pact? Perhaps Albania, since it was treated as a state with a constitution and other formalities under the Italians and Germans. Perhaps Denmark after 1943. Srnec (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Denmark seems very dubious. Albania 1943-1944 would quite possibly qualify. Italian Albania seems closer to something like Bohemia and Moravia was under Germans. And then there is question of Vichy, which is in some sort of weird spot between puppet, neutral, and co-belligerent.--Staberinde (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I would note that simply having some sort of formal military is a very problematic criteria, as under it Government Army (Bohemia and Moravia) would qualify for inclusion which is quite silly. If no clear criteria for the list can't be agreed, then I would support its complete removal from the infobox.--Staberinde (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal, the collapse list is totally a good improvement and feel free to include even Government Army (Bohemia and Moravia) etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC))

So what is your proposed criteria of inclusion?--Staberinde (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You may include any puppet government established by the Axis powers.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC))

That is not really a workable criteria, it would include even stuff like Committee of Secretaries-General, Administrative Council (Norway), etc. burying actually relevant puppet states like Manchukuo into pile of minor self-administrations. Currently you have here even "Governorate of Montenegro" there, which by its own article was really just an Italian occupation authority, should we expand on that logic and include every Reichskommissariat as a separate entry too?--Staberinde (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I fully understand your concern, well I would say, anything that was not incorporated legally and fully into the Third Reich, Italy or any major Axis Power should be listed (starting with Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia), thus yes, Reichskomissariat Ukraine should be also listed! On your concern about multiple governments on the same location subsequently, we should make the list per country and then list the governments subsequently, thus it would have an unambigous structure. Of course, everything would remain inside the collapse list, but the one who is interested may easily find after restructuring the correspondent government, thus finally we could have a full list of the allies of the Axis Powers (our goal is here not to cut or chop off the information, but to expand it precisely and systematically).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC))

It's an infobox and KIENGIR's proposal will not help. I support Staberinde's removal. We have better ways of listing stuff like this than in a collapsible list in an infobox. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

So, tell me your proposal where to list them.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC))

Purpose of infobox is to provide relatively short and simplified overview of the most important facts about topic which reader can quickly check, not to give exhaustive list of every faction, subfaction, collaborationist group, and whatnot involved. There are other articles like Collaboration with the Axis Powers that deal with such finer details.--Staberinde (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the non-mentioned the entities I added to the Collaboration with the Axis Powers and then any further additions should be carried out there.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC))

It appears to me that a large consensus wasn’t exactly reached. As others on this page expressed concern. You have the Slovak Republic and the Independent State of Croatia, which were puppet states, as well as Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which existed for only a few days in the pact, on the same level as the kingdoms of Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, which had participated in various Axis military operations with their national armed force and were not puppet states. This info box can mislead readers to think that these 9 entities were the top powers of the war. If we list some of the puppet states/governments, than we must list them all, or none at all. Sernec is incorrect to say that the Independent State of Croat was not an installed state. As he/she claimed the Serbian entity to be a puppet government that was under German occupation with no territory (it did have a defined territory), as was Croatia and Slovak republic, occupied territories where on which these states were installed by Axis forces. Peacemaker67 strongly echoed disagreement as well. ISC and Slovak State had greater autonomy a states, but ultimately were controlled by Axis powers. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia had no real impact during its incredibly short time aligned with the Axis Powers, which again will mislead the attention of the reader. Simply link to the Tripartite Agreement article.

Being that this is an “Axis Powers” article, the info box should the Axis Powers. I don’t know who decided that “States that adhered to the Tripartite Pact:” should be a defining criterion. If the “Purpose of infobox is to provide relatively short and simplified overview of the most important facts about topic which reader can quickly check,” then the state that adhered should be scrapped and instead a direct link to “Collaboration with the Axis Powers” should be used. Otherwise, if you remove the other client states or puppet governments, then none should be singled out. Pretty much all puppet regimes contributed in some way. This will insure a neutral tone as the current way seems shoehorned. A simple clean fix. KIENGER, thoughts? 74.101.190.2 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Well currently there is consensus, now you came with some claims....the concerns you list in the first pharagraph are dismissed as the list clearly tells it containes "States that adhered to the Tripartite Pact" that is a kind of exaltation of the collaborating states by importance (as beyond the original founders of the Tripartite pact these powers are the top contributors to the Axis). Thus this list is not decided whether puppet or non-puppet, etc. Regarding your remarks you adress to other editors statements I don't see any problem.

I understand your concern, but in my opinion abandoning the infobox or shortening it just to a link to the Collaboration of Axis Powers would not be the best solution...as you can see, I argued for the collapse list to list every puppet government, since a hided collapse list would not necessarily contradict the relative shortness, but if it means like so, then I had no better idea....anyway, in this article as well all the puppet states and governments are present, if not in the infobox, but in the article, isn't it?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC))

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to read my concerns and repky. I meant on this page, not just this section, in terms of people having issue. Like OyMosby and E-960. Thing is can one say that Yugoslavia ISC and Slovak State were cobtributing more so than the other puppet states or regimes? Thats the thing. Why not just list the actual three Axis Powers then, as the article's main core is about, in the info box? This would keep it most simple I think. And would meet everyone's wishes on this page. States were part of the Pact weren't made powers, they remained dominated puppets of the Axis powers. A passerby may assume they were all in equal standing Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and the like. Not sure if I am wording it as clearly as I would hope. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the infobox is pretty clear (and the lead) about who the main three powers were. The problem is that there is no universally accepted criteria for determining who was an Axis power. Is it synonymous with the Tripartite Pact? That would exclude Finland and it would mean there was no Axis prior to September 1941. There isn't even a single enemy they all had in common. Finland never fought or declared war on the USA. Bulgaria never fought or declared war on the USSR. But it is wrong to call the gov'ts of Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland "puppets". They were not. Limiting the infobox to the three major powers could be seen as equally misleading. We do not do it at Allies of World War II. Personally, I think the average reader will intuit that smaller and poorer countries contributed less than larger and richer ones. Srnec (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Argentina

Is there a reason Argentina is listed as co-belligerent?2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:75A7:B1F:DE9B:6EB0 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism. Removed. Srnec (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Status of the Soviet Union

I agree that the Soviet Union was never an Axis power, but then neither was Yugoslavia or Iraq. (Finland, for that matter, was as fully a part of the Axis as was Bulgaria, if not more so. And Thailand is complicated.)

The Soviet Union was, however, a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany in the invasion of Poland and that is clearly all the infobox commits to. I think that we can make this statement based on the dictionary definition of "co-belligerent", which to my knowledge has no special meaning in international relations. The Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law says that "co-belligerents are simply States engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not." If a citation is needed, Robet Blobaum so explicitly calls the USSR a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany in "The Destruction of East Central Europe, 1939–41", Problems of Communism 39, 6 (1990), p. 107, which you can read here: "As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of western and central Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17."

It seems a bit nitpicky to remove the Soviet Union while retaining Yugoslavia, Iraq and even Thailand. There are scholars who have written entire books labelling Hitler's pact with Stalin (or Stalin's pact with Hitler) an "alliance" right in the title: see Roger Moorhouse's The Devil’s Alliance: Hitler’s Pact with Stalin, 1939–1941 (2014) and Geoffrey Roberts's The Unholy Alliance: Stalin's Pact with Hitler (1989). Srnec (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Please see the discussion earlier on this Talk page:

• Talk:Axis_powers/Archive_6#Proposal_to_deal_with_the_controversial_cases

As well as a more recent discussion on the same topic here:

• Talk:Brześć_Ghetto#Soviets_and_Germans_as_"wartime_allies" (this discussion happens to cover the books by Roger Moorhouse and Geoffrey Roberts).

I think that the Soviet Union should be covered under the section "Non-aggression pacts" or similar, or removed. Perhaps, Yugoslavia should be removed also, along with Iraq and Thailand; I've not looked into their situation in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You provided the first link in your edit summary. I don't see its relevance. You made your point and other disagreed. As for the second, I also don't see its relevance. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies (in the formal, military sense), nor do I think that Moorhouse and Roberts are. Nor do I think the infobox is stating as much. But it is in fact a perfectly reasonable way to describe their relationship. All of the "Allies", for example, were not allied (in the formal, military sense).

The problem with a section on "non-aggression pacts" is ... whose? Srnec (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Soviet Union should be removed. It's illogical to label SU co-belligerent during 1940-1945 (note the dates in the header of your infobox) explaining it with Poland invasion of 1939. Also, it's very confusing in general. Fajne_Farita (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd remove the dates. It is impossible to give dates to the "Axis" because no formal Axis existed. The USSR is there because some people insist on labelling Finland a mere co-belligerent, and if we are listing co-belligerents... I'd prefer a plain list of "Axis" powers, but I'm not sure anybody agrees on who they were. Do we include Slovakia and Croatia? Do we include Thailand and Finland? Iraq? Somebody recently tried to add Iran. I think the inclusion of Yugoslavia in the present infobox is even more misleading than the inclusion of the USSR, but it was a signatory of the Tripartite Pact. Srnec (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Change in ordering

@User:Srnec: My bad. I was just about to self-revert my own edit, before you did. I get it now. Most reliable sources have it in this order and it's also the neutral alpha order, and makes more sense historically. Again, my apologies. Thanks for reverting me before I reverted myself. Fortunatestars (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Andrzeja Olejko Słowackie epizody z polskiego Podkarpacia Sanok 39.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Iran

Iran was invaded by Britain and the USSR in August 1941. The invasion was related to WWII and the Allied war effort (see Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran). Should Iran be added to the 'Controversial cases' or 'Co-belligerent state combatants' section?--Whicrowave (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Iran was overwhelmingly pro-Axis, like Egypt and Iraq. (86.154.234.235 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC))

Norway and Finland

Norway and Finland were both allies of Germany from 1940 to 1945. (86.154.234.235 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC))

Norway doesn't count because it was under military occupation, had a puppet government led by a party that never got relevant amounts of votes, and had a governor or "reichskommissar" appointed by Hitler himself. Norway was not even nominally independent, but was rather a reichskommissariat! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Norway and Finland both took part in the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. (86.154.234.235 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC))

The bottom line is whether you can find sources saying that Norway or Finland were Axis countries. For Finland, sources are plentiful even if some caveat Finland slightly. For Norway, well, I'm not aware of any but that doesn't mean they are not there. FOARP (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Status of Japan

Was Japan actually part of the Axis? I'm pretty sure they had their own alliance going, the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japan just signed the Tripartite Pact. Frogface08 (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogface08 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read the lead, it is generally treated and considered like that.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC))

Hearts of Iron really does affect how people think history actually happened, it seems. FOARP (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Rmoving Mengjiang (Inner Mongolia)

I am proposing to remove Mengjiang from the list of nominally independent Japanese puppet states. The reason is: a. The article is about those states, authentically or nominally independent, fighting against the Allies in WW2. b. Mengjiang was a nominally "independent" puppet state only until 1940, afterwards it nominally became an "autonomous" part of the Wang Jing Wei regime. c. Neither Japan nor any of its puppets was formally engaged in WW2 until Pearl Harbor in 1941, by which time Mengjiang had lost its nominal "independence". 120.21.51.14 (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ad b: Yes, it was a puppet state of Japan until 1940. In that year is was taken over by Wang Jingwei regime, another puppet state of Japan.

And according to some scholars, the Second Sino-Japanese War was part/a prelude to the Second World War. So no, removing it seems a bad idea. The Banner talk 01:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe most scholars consider the Second Sino-Japanese War to be NOT a part of WW2 until Pearl Harbor, as the generally accepted WW2 start time is Sept.1939, not 1937 when China and Japan went to war.

Furthermore, if Mengjiang is to be included, so should be the Provisional Government of the Republic of China and Reformed Government of the Republic of China, which like Mengjiang were nominally "independent" puppet states which existed until 1940 when they, again like Mengjiang, were absorbed into the Wang Jing Wei regime.

120.21.51.14 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

If there's no further discussion, I will proceed with edit tomorrow, thanks. 120.21.176.30 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not how it works here. Give it time for discussion. The Banner talk 10:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to including the Chinese puppet regimes or to removing Mengjiang. The concept of the "Axis powers" is somewhat fuzzy when you move beyond the Tripartite Pact powers and in this article we can cover these puppet states in their own sections or as part of the Japanese war effort. Srnec (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input of opinion, Srnec.120.21.181.94 (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

To "The Banner", you are surely welcome to give any further reason for your objection, though I belive the one you gave yesterday has been properly addressed and no longer an issue. 120.21.181.94 (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Sad for you, it are your arguments that are rebuffed.

But @Srnec: has a point that the Japanese client-states/puppet-states make the article somewhat fuzzy. With the fact that the present article is already quite long, a reorganisation/rewrite looks sensible. In this case by shortening the separate entries of the Japanese client-states/puppet-states (just a list) and move the background to Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The rather random removal of just one puppet-state is not correct. The Banner talk 10:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop making offensive comments, "The Banner". I have responded to your opinion with explanation, you responded to this with nothing but saying I am sad. Ironically, it was also you who said "That is not how it works here". This time, no, that is NOT how it works here. 120.21.114.196 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your description of the proposed removal of Mengjiang as "random" is not precise too. I have clearly explained why Mengjiang is not compatible with the current list, while all other Japanese puppet states are -- they fought against Allies in WW2 as nominally "independent" entities. 120.21.114.196 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

And why are the others suitable? And do you have any opinion about my proposal? The Banner talk 01:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

To "The Banner", I have addressed the difference between Mengjiang and the others, but in case you still find my point ambiguous, then I'll say it again: the other puppets fought in WW2 as nominally "independent" states, but Mengjiang fought in WW2 nominally as a part of the Wang Jing Wei regime.

Furthermore, I previously thought your proposal of shortening was addressed to Srnec. As for me, my concern is about removing Mengjiang because it doesn't fit into this list. You're surely welcome to shorten the article in your proposed way, at least I wouldn't disagree with it. 120.21.0.80 (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

To "The Banner", while I remain convinced Mengjiang doesn't belong to the list, if you disagree with its removal, then I will not proceed with the edit, since a consensus can't be reached and I won't force it upon you. Happy new year to all. 120.21.56.109 (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The proposer here is making two assertions - that Mengjiang was not independent in 1940, and that as such Mengjiang could not have been part of the Axis. Mengjiang is widely described as not being independent but instead a puppet state of Japan (whether nominally becoming part of Wang Jingwei's regime in 1940 or not), but the second part does not follow - this does not mean it was not part of the Axis. The Axis existed before 1940, according to multiple sources. There is no reason to believe that the Axis was limited only to certain nominally-independent states and not others. What do the sources say?

• This source lists Mengjiang as a Japanese puppet amongst other countries synonymous with the Axis.
• "Russia, Japan and Mongolia" by GDR Phillips at p.27 describes the founding of Inner Mongolia as a "shining model for the whole axis", which rather implies that it was part of the Axis.
• This source describes Inner Mongolia as part of a "Japan-Germany-Hungary-Inner Mongolia 'Revisionist' axis" opposed to a Soviet-led one. Again, this rather implies that Inner Mongolia was part of the Axis (capital A).

Again we should warn against going beyond what the sources say or heavily imply. We should not simply come up with our own definition of what the Axis was and try to apply it. FOARP (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)