Talk:Axis powers

The Soviet Union?

It could be said, that up to Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union was part of the Axis. They invaded eastern Poland and was cooperating with the Germans until 22 June 1941. I think this article should reflect that. --The monkeyhate 11:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Relations between countries were quite shallow in the 1930s. For example, the Nazis had good relations with Chiang Kai-Shek until 1941 and condemned the Nanjing Massacre. No one would say that China was part of the Axis though. The Soviets offered to support Czechoslovakia in 1936 but lacked a common land border and were obstructed by Romania. Britain, France and Poland co-operated in the partition of Czechosloakia but no one in their right mind would say they were part of the Axis. The Soviets supported the democratically-elected Spanish government in the Spanish Civil War against Germany and Italy, while no other state did anything. Stalin had idiotically gutted his own officer corps in 1937 and needed some breathing space in which to rebuild the Red Army. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Soviet "co-operation" with Germany for less than two years in 1939-41 can be seen as an aberration, resulting from the short-sightedness and failures of the (future) Allies (including the Soviets), rather than any natural affinity between the Soviets and Axis countries. Grant65 | Talk 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that USSR should be mentioned. USSR wasn't officially member of axis(and article should mention that) but Molotov-Ribbendrop pact(which practically directly caused the start of war), its participation in invasion of Poland and German-Soviet Commercial Agreement which seriously weakened effect of allied naval blockade are importnant enough for haveing "Case of Soviet Union" in article like Spain and Denmark have.--Staberinde 13:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Than why not "case of the USA"?--Nixer 13:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Staberinde, the Molotov-Ribbendrop pact would not have happened if Britain and France had been prepare to work with Stalin before 1939. But they weren't. The Soviets were't ready for war with German in 1939 --- they weren't even ready in mid-1941 -- so the pact was a matter of survival. If there were any evidence that the Soviets had the same intention in invading Poland that Germany did, then I would be inclined to agree with you. By invading Poland, after the German invasion, the Soviets ensured that the Germans were several hundred kilometres further from the Soviet border than they would have been otherwise. I would compare the Soviet invasion to the Australian-Dutch invasion of Portuguese Timor in 1942. Had the Portuguese or Timorese put up any resistance then the Australians and Dutch would also have been placed in the position of killing people in a war of aggression. Grant65 | Talk 14:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

USSR were not a member of the Axis. It was a separate military action and was treated as such by the allies. Even though their actions were condemned by the Allies there was no aggression between the Allies and the USSR. If the USSR had been considered at the time to be members of the Axis then France and Britain would have declared war on the USSR as well as on Germany. Ronank 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Grant, Australian-Dutch invasion of Portuguese Timor in 1942 is no way compareable with soviet invasion of Poland. Portugese Timor was small practically undefended colony, Poland was at that time probably 5th or 6th in strenght at Europe. Also I really can't understand your logic. Molotov-Ribbendrop pact itsselfly very well proves Stalin's intentions to invade Poland from east. And pact clearly wasn't matter of survival for USSR as Hitler was not in position to fight 2 front war at 1939(even his capabilities for 1 front war were quite limited).

Rorank, Allies also didn't declare war on Spain and Denmark.(if i remember correctly they even never declared war on Vichy france). Still we have those countries in article.--Staberinde 18:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Staberinde, (1) There was no way for the Australians or Dutch to know for sure how the local population would react. Some Timorese hold Australia partly responsible for the 40-70,000 Timorese killed by the Japanese. Some Australians agree. The similarities are there. (2) You say: "pact clearly wasn't matter of survival for USSR as Hitler was not in position to fight 2 front war at 1939". He wasn't fighting on any front at all when the pact was signed. I would submit that lebensraum was the major objective for the Nazis and war with Britain and France was a major inconvenience, albeit one which they thought could be overcome. Stalin was many things but he was not a fool and was not blind to this. Grant65 | Talk 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Then Stalin and Hitler divided eastern-europe with Molotov-Ribbendrop pact there was no war in europe, Poland was not yet invaded, USSR and Germany didn't have any common border, France and UK were not ready to allow Germnay into Poland, Poland itsselfly was quite big country. Portugese timor was small weakly defended colony which was on the way of already fastly advanceing japan. Completely uncompareable situations.--Staberinde 10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, we might also mention the hostilities between Japan and the Soviets in 1938-39. Another reason why they were not prepared for a war in the west in September 1939.

Yes, there was a big difference between Poland's forces and the Portuguese forces in Timor; that is irrelevant in terms of why the Soviet and Australian-Dutch invasions of those countries occurred. It was only because of Portugals's military weakness in Asia, and the previously friendly relations between the Portuguese and their invaders that a Poland-type situation did not emerge.

And the fact remains that the USSR did not make any of the direct contributions that Spain, Denmark (etc) did to contribute to the Nazi war effort. Grant65 | Talk 02:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

USSR invasion of Poland was direct contribution to nazi war effort, it probably was more importnant then Danish and Spanish contributions combined. Also German-Soviet Commercial Agreement was very importnant for germany which lacked raw materials.--Staberinde 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A trade agreement isn't a military alliance. By that measure Sweden's iron and access to its railways made it Germany's most important "ally". As for the rest, we will have to agree to disagree. Grant65 | Talk 09:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I will make one last atempt to convince you that Portugese timor and poland can't be compared(it probably fails but atleast i will try). Portugese timor was small weakly defended colony of a neutral country, allies occupied it to prevent japanese landing there. Allied forces which occupied it fought aganist advanceing japanese. Now poland was attacked by soviet union in full agreement with germany. USSR and Germany cooperated during invasion, for example Lwow was under german siege but after soviet invasion German troops handed operations over to their new Soviet allies. Soviet invasion made polish Romanian Bridgehead plan useless. Also Nazis and Soviets had joint victory parade in Brest. 250,000 to 450,000 Polish soldiers were taken prisoner of war by the Soviets. Completely different situations, in Timor allies occupied portugese territory to avoid japanese occupation of area, in poland USSR fully cooperated with Germany in destroying polish resistance, agreement for divideing poland had been made already with Molotov-ribbendrop pact.--Staberinde 12:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail. (W. Churchill, 1939.) It seems he was not too disappointed with this fact and did not see it as a help for Germany. The parade in Brest was not victory parade but a parade dedicated to replacing German administration with Soviet one. Allies' forces had many such "joint" parades in the Western Front with German forces when Germans surrendered. One can even find photos where British soldiers stay on a parade along with Germans, which does not give right to claim Britain to be ally of Germany.--Nixer 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Great quote; that says it all. Grant65 | Talk

There are many disputable cases about counting country as member of axis or not. As this article includes other cases like Denmark and Spain and allows reader to decide, then same should be done with USSR.--Staberinde 10:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why not USA?--Nixer 09:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How many allied nations USA invaded in cooperation with nazis?--Staberinde 09:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

National security makes for difficult and controversial decisions. As I have alluded with the case of Portuguese Timor, there are "invasions" and there are invasions. The U.K. and U.S. occupied Iceland. The Allies were not technically at war with Vichy France but still attacked forces on numerous occasions, such as the controversial Attack on Mers-el-Kébir. I doubt that there would have been any question of the USSR invading Poland if (1) the Germans had not already invaded or (2) Poland had sought a defence treaty with the USSR prior to Molotov-Ribbentrop. Grant65 | Talk 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

About 99% of all invasions in the world history(includeing german invasion of poland for example) could be justified as some kind of "national security need" so that is not a real argument(btw, argument that Stalin's deal with Hitler about divideing poland was neccessary security need of USSR can be strongly disputed).--Staberinde 10:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Pindus-Macedonian Principality

Someone should write something about the Principality of Pindus. I can't decide where to put it, however - since it was both an Italian and Bulgarian puppet state - maybe under collaborators? --PaxEquilibrium 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Norway

Were is information about Norway's collaboration government? It sent the troops to Russian front, also there was an Norway SS Divisions. - Ghoort 10:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Norwegian government fled to London during the German invasion. The Germans installed their own administration, but it did not have constitutional legitimacy. Norway should not be included here. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Norway should be included here, but solely because of Quisling's puppet government. Quisling gave name to the collaborators and it is still used today. The inclusion should have nothing to do with legitemacy of the government, but historical importance. (Well, Quisling's government didn't have practically any other importancy but this naming thing...) The cold fact is that Quisling's government is well known name around the world. It means that it shall be explained here (See Denmark for another example), otherwise it raises questions about the neutrality and impartiality of the Wikipedia. --Whiskey 12:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before. The fact that Quisling betrayed his countrymen and women is dealt with in several other articles. It is not a reason for including Norway in this article. Inge 12:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

But this article includes other puppet regimes, such as in Serbia and India.--Nixer 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The German government invited exiled Yugoslav King Peter II to assume power of the "Kingdom of Serbia" they created, but he never did - there was no legitimacy; the puppet-State of Serbia may be compared with the General-Government (although with some form of self-provision. There is no reason not to have an article on Quisling Norway. --PaxEquilibrium 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland

i know Switzerland supplied Germany in WWII and turned its Jews to the germans, so I think we should mention them.

Thailand

The section on Thailand under Co-belligerents needs to be grammaticized.

Also - what does 'co-belligerent' mean? Jake95 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can help answer this. 'co-belligerent' was the term chosen months ago to describe the situation in Finland. Finland was initially supportive of the German war effort in the region because Finland itself was at war with the Soviet Union. However, this support was purely based on the logic that Finland's own existance was threatened by the war so from a strategic point of view it made sense. Finland later switched sides and fought the Germans. This has been debated before and there is a lot more to it than what I just wrote. But it is this complicated situation that we chose the term 'co-belligerent' to describe. The fact that other nations were later added under that section of the article is frankly still unclear to me since that section of the article was created to describe the unique and to this day very sensitive situation in Finland at the time. MartinDK 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Check Co-belligerence. Although Finland was de facto ally of Germany, it wasn't allied de jure due to ideological differencies. There are numerous examples also in modern world for similar situations, like Iran being co-belligerent with USA against Taliban or Saudis with USA against Iraq.--Whiskey 09:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Graf Schwerin von Krosigk

Graf Schwerin von Krosigk never was Chancellor of the German "Reich". He was apointet as finance minister by Hitler prior to his suicide, later apointet as foreign minister by Dönitz. Schwerin von Krosigk was the Leading Minister of the Acting Government. But this is not like the titel "Reichskanzler", Chancellor of the German "Reich". Last Chancellor was Joseph Goebbels who also has been appointet by Hitler. NashvilleD 10:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Slovakia

I see Slovakia is not mentioned under "German Puppets" nor anywhere else except at the bottom. Would someone be so kind mentioning them? For a short introduction: AFAIK after german forces conquered Morava, Hitler gave Slovaks the possibility to become independent, so they didn't have to fight, and they took the deal. They were allies (or puppets) until the uprising 1944. -- Bertram

Slovakia was in article before, some vandal had deleted it so I readded it.--Staberinde 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. There's stillone thing i'm not too clear about. Is that shown on the pictures the real flag of the 1st Slovak Republic? Shouldn't it have a Hlinka-cross? (example: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/sk%5Ehg.html)

Denmark revisited

I just read the discussion about Denmark in the archives for this page (one of the most informative content debates I've ever read on WP, by the way) and have come to the conclusion that Denmark should be listed, along with Vichy France and Independent Croatia, as a collaborator state of the Axis. The conditions under which Vichy is classified as a collaborator are similar to Denmark's. I don't see any reason to change the text of the Denmark section, it's fairly well-written and NPOV, just the heading should be changed to list it as one of the collaborator states. Cla68 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Cla68. It does not make any sense to make up a heading "The case of..." when Denmark clearly collaborated with Germany. It should be included with the other collaborator states.

I've restored the heading that was agreed to after a very long debate. You consider the case to be closely related to the case of France. Noted, but such a conclusion is strongly disputed by many Danish historians who see clear differences between Denmark and France. The quote I mentioned from Lidegaard could be backed up with others of the same nature, and the term "collaborator state" is definitely incorrect for the 1943-45 period. Will try to find a source for the Montgomery remark. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 05:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I don't completely agree but the section is now, at least, well-cited. Cla68 06:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope so. If you need more sources, please let me know. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can understand why many Danes today would dispute Denmark's classification as an Axis ally or collaborator. Bulgarians, Romanians, Finns, Slovaks all dispute that they willingly allied themselves or collaborated with Hitler. But Denmark give material economic and military aid to the Germans, especially against Russia. Would a new category of say "vassal state" be acceptable? Scando 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I need some serious help here It is now being seriously suggested at Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II that the Germans were not in full control of Denmark and that the Danes were therefore able to establish heavily guarded camps for German refugees during the last months of the war and that these camps were used to systematically mistreat German children, women and eldery. The primary argument used to back this up is that since the Danes could rescue the Jews the Germans could not be in control of Denmark. MartinDK 07:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Spain as an Axis collaborator

It seems user Staberdine opposes putting Spain into Axis collaborator section. Any reasons why not to do so?--Planemo 10:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read through the archives and you will see why we agreed on this. Also please do not change the Denmark section without talking about it here first. We already had one revert war over this. You are free to raise your concerns overt the factual accuracy here but please do not make such edits without talking about it first. MartinDK 10:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already looked through archives and found no discussion regarding Spain. Some users argued it should not be shown as an Axis power, but nobody argued that Spain was not Axis collaborator.--Planemo 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Axis_Powers/Archive4#Spain_.26_Vichy_France I am not saying it can't be changed but this article is a mine field and we know from experience that we need to talks things htrough here before we change the article. MartinDK 10:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So I read the archive and found no reason why Spain should be placed in a separate category than Danmark--Planemo 11:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh... why did you change your signature from User:Nixer ?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axis_powers_of_World_War_II" Reinserted by me as the below editor removed it MartinDK 07:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, Planemo. There is no factual dispute as to Spain's status as an Axis collaborator.CaesarRosso 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus should Spain be mentioned in article as part of Axis or not. Same is true about Denmark and USSR. For example some people think that USSR should not be mentoned at all and others think that it was member of axis. Because of that those borderline cases are made separate so that it would be clear that there is not clear consensus about those countries. It is up to reader to decide if Spain was Axis collaborator or was it neutral country who doesn't belong to this article at all. But now I want explanation for this[1].--Staberinde 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute that Spain should classified as an Axis collaborator. If there is any dispute, please state a factual basis. Otherwise, cease with the reverts, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SPAIN WAS AN AXIS COLLABORATOR, PERIOD. Franco was installed by German and Italian troops and both sympathized and collaborated with the Axis. CaesarRosso 05:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

CaesarRosso, your shouting doesn't impress us. I suggets you to learn what term "collaborationism" means.--Staberinde 10:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Norway again, again, again

I just noticed that Norway seems to have been reinserted some time ago. If there are no serious objections or new information I will remove it again per previous discussion about this. MartinDK 10:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree again that Norway does not belong on this list. This has been discussed at lenght and been decided, but new participants should be alowed to vent their opinons anyway. Illythr reverted and stated "Norway wasn't a full-fledged Axis power. That is why it is listed in as a "German puppet state" along with Serbia and Italy." Norway wasn't even a partial Axis power. It was occupied by Germany and administered by the German occupants. In order to calm the Norwegians down a bit a mock governmant was installed with Quisling given the quasi-title of ministerpresident. This institution had no power to act without consent from the German occupants and was trusted with few areas of government. Norway did not in any way participate in the war on the Axis side. The occupants extracted resources from Norway as they did with all other occupied territories, but also spent considerable resources occupying it. Some individual Norwegians enlisted in volunteer units established by the German military. Individuals from virtually every European country did the same. This does not make Norway an Axis power. As this topic has reached consensus before I will remove Norway again. If anyone insists in reinserting it please dicuss it here first.Inge 13:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The name of the problem is Quisling.

The simple fact that the name Quisling has become the synonym of a collaborator forces the entry of Norway to this article. If Quisling is not handled here, it means that Norway will pop up again and again and again in this article in unexpected forms, most likely not very informed I am sure. The case of Denmark is the way how it should be done also with Norway: Those who are better informed should enter the facts (and sources) to the article, it is the only way Norway could be presented in truthful way.

This doesn't mean that Quisling government was even a puppet government, but it should be explained here what it was. --Whiskey 13:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, create a "case of Norway" subsection or something, but don't just delete it all outright. --Illythr 13:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point (the entry I removed was in some points factually incorrect as well), but: This article is dealing with Axis powers of World War II. The actions of mr Quisling does not merit the inclusion of Norway. If someone wants to know more about Quisling the synonym they can go to Quisling, if they want to know more about Quisling the man they can go to Vidkun Quisling and if they want to learn something about what happened to Norway during WWII they can go to Norway during World War II. Norway was reentered because someone believes it to have been somewhat less than "a full-fledged Axis power", but still an Axis power. This is wrong, but would be what retention of the entry implies. We can't be preassured to include things a consensus has decided to leave out.Inge 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If we were to write a a balanced and informative "case of Norway" section on Norway here under Axis powers of World War II it would in effect be a section describing why some people might have the misunderstanding that Norway was a minor Axis power and why Norway wasn't an Axis power. More or less something more fitting on a discussion page. Then we would have to defend that version. A reader is more informed on the status of Norway during WWII by the exclution of Norway.Inge 14:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Whiskey has a point about taking control of what is added to the article rather than keep reverting what people are otherwise going to add anyway. That is a good solution and one that I have advocated on other articles as well. However, in this case we need to draw a line somehwere. There was a time where Belgium was also added along with Luxemburg for very obscure reasons. This article should not include countries whose status during the war was never questioned. I think the best way to do this would be to refer the reader to the Quisling article. Perhaps what we need is a small section that refers the reader to the various articles on collaboration in countries otherwise not regarded as even remote members of the Axis? MartinDK 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a chapter about collaborationist movements. The current version of Quisling article is in no way an improvement, as it hints there was much more organized co-operation with Germany in Norway than there really was. Also, it refers other collaborationist movements as Quislings, which makes even more important to provide factual information about it somewhere. Norway during World War II is a little better, but it also dances around the question about the nature of Quisling regime. --Whiskey 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Quisling and other articles does need improvement, but are the more suitable places to inform people on this subject. As Martin pointed out we need to draw the line somewhere. I believe the line runs somewhere just north of the Danish border (not literaly:)). I was a bit hesitant to go for including it, but there were some strong points for it. The solution reached there was a good one. But I don't think we should go further. I am sure there are someone out there who might argue that almost every European country merits some mention or paragraph in this article. Should we then preemtively create paragraphs for them? Norway, Belgium, Luxemburg definately fall into the exclude category even if they might be readded by passers by from time to time. A general collaborators section might be a good idea though. Espeshially if it is handled in the same professional manner as the Denmark case. On the other hand we already have Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II and Collaboration during World War II.Inge 16:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible typo?

Ethiopia was consolidated with the Italian colonies of Eritrea and Somolialand to form the new state of Italian East Africa Is this a typo that should instead be Somaliland? I'm pretty sure thats the case, but I'm not 100% sure that I am correct. --Bletch 00:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I changed it. MartinDK 07:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq ?

How come the animated map shows Iraq being axis state or occupied in 1942 ? Eregli bob 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange Addition in first paragraph under Origins...

The last line of this says: "An Axis was declared between canada and america by george w. bush, foreign minister of Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini on October 12, 2007."

Is someone trying to make a political statement or are they just being childish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lindyguy (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Bulgarian skirmishes with Soviet Black Sea Fleet

The Bulgarian Navy fought several skirmishes against the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and sank at least one Soviet submarine. The Soviet submarine was Shch-204 "Minoga" (sank 06.12.1941 30km off Varna harbour near cape Emine during attack against Bulgarian/Romanian convoy. It was found by Bulgarian trawler in 1983) Several sources mention that submarine was heavily damaged by depth charges from Bulgarian patrol boats "Belomoretz" and "Chernomoretz" (built in USA in 1918 for France, purchased by Bulgaria in 1922), broke surface and was destroyed by artillery fire from Bulgarian patrol boats.

Drawing of the remains of Shch-204.

http://www2.filehost.to/files/2007-02-22_03/184200_sank_soviet_sub__by_bulgarians.jpg

Bulgarian patrol boat "Belomoretz", captured by Soviets in 1944 and renamed C60.

http://sovnavy-ww2.by.ru/small/pic/c60.jpg

Several Soviet submarines also exploded on seamines near Bulgarian coast - those were at least S-34 (11.1941 - cape Emine), Shch-211 (11.1941 - cape St. Atanas, it was found in 2000 by Bulgarian divers). Soviet submarines also sank several Bulgarian merchant ships - these included refrigerator ship "Shipka" (2304 GRT, sank by L-4 type submarine 15.09.1941), small transport ship "Struma" (275 GRT, sunk by submarine Shch-213 24.02.1942), schooner (scuttled by boarding party from the submarine Shch-214 02.06.1942), schooner "Vita" (240 GRT, sunk by submarine Shch-215 24.08.1944). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

The cases of Spain and Portugal

It should be divided into 2 separate parts actions of those countries were not completely identical.--Staberinde 12:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares

If anyone cares, the definition of an "Axis power" is, and I quote, "Any state (or country) that were opposed to the allies during WWII". So then there is some idea that a lot of the countries that are being mentioned above aren't actually worth mentioning. 24.76.185.101 22:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares

If anyone cares, the definition of an "Axis power" is, and I quote, "Any state (or country) that were opposed to the allies during WWII". So then there is some idea that a lot of the countries that are being mentioned above aren't actually worth mentioning. Zazzer 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Finland was not under "axis control"

The map shows Finland as being under "Axis control" since 7/1941. That implies that Finland was occupied by Axis forces but it was not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.50.237 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Wrong Color Key for 2nd Map?

The MAP KEY for the 2nd image (the animated map) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ww2_allied_axis.gif ... seems to be for some other map I think because the only colors used are RED, BLUE, and BLACK... yet the colors in the key-code below the map (when clicked from the main article) shows a whole bunch of colors that don't appear... and doesn't have the colors RED, BLUE, or BLACK that are actually used. Seems that RED is for Russian controlled Alied Power countries, and BLUE is all the other Allies... BLACK is obviously the Axis Power controlled countries. But what's up with this key? It's got a bunch of shades of green and orange/brown, but none of the actually relevant colors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ww2_allied_axis.gif

Robk6364 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)