Jump to content

Talk:Axis powers: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 91: Line 91:
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. [[User:FkpCascais|FkpCascais]] ([[User talk:FkpCascais|talk]]) 16:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
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. [[User:FkpCascais|FkpCascais]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:OyMosby|OyMosby]] ([[User talk:OyMosby|talk]]) 00:19, 12 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. [[User:OyMosby|OyMosby]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:25, 12 February 2018

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)[reply]

@Peacemaker67:. Norman Davies considers it one here[1].
  1. ^ Davies, Norman (2007). Europe at war : 1939-1945 : no simple victory. London: Pan. ISBN 978-0-330-35212-3. p. 304
(Hohum @) 18:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. It is now clear to me and I agree. The Banner talk 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It was a state that acceded to the Tripartite Pact, as the infobox states. Srnec (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did do an edit on the matter. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Those countries were affiliates of the Tripartite pact not members of the Tripartite pact.--E-960 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&oldid=825224007"