Talk:Tripartite Pact

Older comments

On March 25th, 1941, Prince Paul (Pavle), Regent of Yugoslavia, signed the Tripartite Pact. It was not easy for Hitler to gain Yugoslavia's cooperation. There were strong anti-German feelings in the country, especially among the Serbian population. March 27th the regime was overthrown by a military coup d'état with British support, and the 18 years old King Peter II of Yugoslavia seized power.

Although the new rulers opposed Nazi-Germany, they also feared that if Hitler attacked Yugoslavia, Britain was not in any real position to help. For the safety of the country, they declared that Yugoslavia would adhere to the Tripartite Pact.

Postponing Operation Barbarossa the Germans simultaneously attacked Yugoslavia and Greece. From April 6th, Luftwaffe pounded Belgrade to the ground for three days and three nights. German ground troops moved in, and Yugoslavia capitulated on April 17th.

I don't follow. Should explain why Germany decided to attack despite Yugoslavia's adherence to the Tripartite Pact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempshill (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 October 2003 (UTC)

---

I've standardised the dates in the article: Wikipedia allows users to display dates according to preference if the wikitext follows standard format.

The article mentions the US a lot. I was not aware that that country was an Axis power. I suggest that the article shows US POV. The response of the Soviet Union and other Allied powers to Axis threat is just as valid.

Gareth Hughes 12:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this whole area shows our American bias, even by the definition itself. Yet every time I use actual history encyclopedia to correct this document it gets deleted out.

I also agree further information is required here. It totally leaves out the fact that a jealous Mussolini forced Hitler's hand by a failed invasion of Greece from Albania.

I, for instance, though even my professor's stuff keeps getting deleted out here, might point out that the reason the Serbs were pro-British was because in WW1 they served together on the Salonika Front 1915-18 and that Serbs dominated the officer corps. The Slovenes didn't see anything they liked while the Croats were actually more pro-Italian. The Macedonians similarily looked at the Bulgarians as liberators to help them set up an independent state. And to be fair to Mussolini's competition with Hitler in Yugoslavian politics, Italy also had the favor of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslims.

This is where someone else I notice is frustrated with wikipedia's criticism of prejudice by someone who apparently gave up trying to point out why many do not equate Nazism with Fascism. The reason the above ethnic groups favored Italy rather than Germany was because Italy's fascism was based upon ultra-nationalism, not racism. Yet then again crept in the Papal Concordants that helped Mussolini and Hitler gain power democratically that further complicated things in the Balkans.

But what do I know, those in charge of final edits here in wikipedia keep deleting out my historically proven statements while permitting deliberately mis-leading and historically innaccurate implications of Axis vs Allies over-simplicity.

I also notice the fellow who, in a similar and related competition issue, (and rightly so, as it is in history books,) tried pointing out that even earlier Mussolini was furious his friend the President of Austria was assassinated by the Nazis. But if I say that Mussolini actually tried to lead anti-Hitler pacts with England and France in the early 30s, that is also going to get deleted out because it offends our over-simplified American perception of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

too much theory?

>This declaration of war against the United States was arguably the greatest mistake made by the Third Reich

Surely it was a mistake, but I think that neither declaration of war against USA, nor the Operation Barbarossa deserve the title of "Greatest Mistake made by the Third Reich". It's simply too subjective.

>While the plans of the German military effort included an eventual attack directly upon the U.S

I would like to see the source for this. Hitler might have considered attack on USA in late future, but AFAIK German military never made plans for an actual invasion of USA. (Although it did make plans for invasions of Switherland, Italy, Sweden, Turkey, Hungary and many other countries which didn't directly oppose Germany)

>This would allow the creation of long range bombers

Didn't you hear that in 1941 Germany already posessed Me-264 bombers which were capable of bombing New York City?

In general, the three last paragraphs seem contain too much unnecessary theory. Just mentioning that Germany declared war on USA despite not being obliged to do so would be enough.

I also heard that right after the coup in Yugoslavia, Moscow signed a treaty of alliance with new Yugoslavian government. Maybe I will add that when I find an actual proof for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami321 (talk • contribs) 01:23 - 01:29, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I am going to make a few changes, especially because this "achieve world domination" mythos is exactly that - common held belief that reflects Allied propaganda. You further reveal you lack of knowledge on the subject when you go into detail about control of Africa. In reality, it was only Rommel who broke from the defensive strategy in Africa and the defensive campaign only came into being because of failed Italian military plans. I started to go into detail about the linkeage between Germany and Japan and how this affected the war. Possibly the same thing could be done for Italy. Speaking of German ingenuity and scientific research, has anyone ever heard of this? http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Einstein-Antigravity.pdf Strange.--68.45.21.204 02:36 - 03:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the originator of the criticism makes a good point, we seem to keep defining even non-American history by American perceptions way too much. I'm as WASP as you get, and I'm embarassed by when all my foreign friends(I grew up and went to school in different nations then work too), at how we, the minority of the world but majority of the English-speaking contributors, behave just like I teach my students in history how our enemies came about to perceive us wrongly and attack us too.

I've even noticed an American attack contributors based upon non-american spelling as contributions not being complimentary of us all the time.

As for the Me264s, if we accept the German claims, yes, they did get within 15 minutes and sight of New York city, but Uboats actually got up the Mississippi, that doesn't mean the reason Hitler declared war on America was because he was planning an invasion. Part of our racism shows through in that we always point out Japan unintentionally attacked us before a declaration of war officially delivered, but we don't point out Hitler always attacked before a DoW, sometimes without even ever giving one.

I do agree that it has to be mentioned, eventhough it contradicts the author's original definition and our own propaganda, that the very reason that Hitler declared war on the USA was because he knew Japan did not consider itself allied to Germany. That was the whole motive.

He was hoping to 'buy' their allegiance by making it seem they 'owed him one' and should return the favor by declaring war on Russia in return. Which admittedly, even in the winter/spring of 1942, could very well have been enough to force the Soviet Union to capitulate.

Sadly, by not correcting what we know are historical lies to make ourselves look better(propaganda), we are showing the world we aren't really that much better than the propandists who foolishly started the wars with us in the past.

Believe me, I've worked internationally for decades, the major reason we continue to throw you people these 'spin doctor' lies is because the historians' ethics went out the window when it came down to the choice of telling the truth, or writing what was going to sell more 'history' books. I was hoping that more of them would anonymously admit here where we don't contribute to get paid or even make fame for our names, that we'd be more honest in this anonymity.

'Cuba is a greater enemy than China', 'Saddam was responsible for 9/11 not Bin Ladin'. One 'spin doctor' friend of mine joked that by doing that we were at least making Bin Laden angry he wasn't getting credit anymore. I still have faith, or is the word confidence better? that we anglo-americans can prove to the world that we can admit our misakes and failings and that's where wisdom comes from, not never admitting or never making mistakes. Then maybe more of the world would hate/resent us less and trust/respect if not like us more.

We appear to be the Zsha Zsha Gabor of historians, darling, lol ;). Befuddler 22:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Focus on Tripartite Act

The last 2 paragraphs should go entirely. They don't relate to the Tripartite act at all. Maybe they'd be better placed on a page regarding the US involvement in the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2xshandy (talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to correct this, and accompany some of the contributor's ideas in the last section of my revision. Looks like Rich removed them altogether though. --68.45.21.204 03:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Japan and the Jews

This is an interesting topic, but it seems out of place here. The Tripartite Pact says nothing about the Jews. I suggest this material belongs in an article on the history of anti-Semitism.

Japan not part of Axis?

Befuddler 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering if it is historically incorrect to keep referring to Japan as an active military ally of Germany's under some 'Axis Pact'.

First, Japan signed NO documented pact, treaty, alliance or agreement with the title 'Axis'.
The nick-name 'Axis' was for the one treaty Japan refused to join.
The nick-name 'Axis' was used by Italy to refer to the 'Pact of Steel'(May39). It literally referred to the roughly 13 degree East longitudinal axis that linked Berlin and Rome, not Tokyo.

Second, even if we 'english'(victors), claim to have the right to rename pacts and alliances as we wish to indicate 'Axis' applies to the 'Tripartite Pact' instead of the 'Pact of Steel', then it is STILL historically incorrect.

The agreements were NOT all versions of the same original agreement. They were completely different and separate treaties. Like the 'Allies' of WWI included Japan and Italy while the 'Allies' of WWII did not.

Nov36...The 'Anti-Comintern Pact' was a mutual defense pact directed against the USSR that Japan did sign.
May39...The 'Pact of Steel' is signed by Germany and Italy. Japan's refusal to join proves these were two separate treaties/pacts.
This is the pact coined 'Axis' by Mussolini, the one Japan did not join.
Aug39...The 'Anti-Comintern Pact' is declared violated and voided by Germany's signing of the 'Nazi-Soviet Pact'. Japan declares strict neutrality to Germany.
Nov40...The 'Tripartite Pact' was a new treaty signed over a year later by Japan, Germany and Italy. This was another mutual defense pact this time directed mostly against the USA.
Apr41...The'Non-Aggression Pact/Friendship Treaty' signed by Japan with the USSR, proving the separate distinctness of the aforementioned pacts.
Jun41...Germany and her allies invade the USSR. The fact that Japan and the USSR honour their pact is further proof the aforementioned pacts are separate entities AND that neither Japan nor the Soviet Union considered Japan to be an active military ally of Germany, however you nick-name the German alliance.

This time-line not only proves these were separate pacts but ALSO that neither Japan nor the Soviet Union considered Japan part of any active German military alliance, nick-named 'Axis' or otherwise.
If Japan were a military ally of Germany's, she would have declared war on the Soviet Union with Germany and her allies.
(Good thing for us she wasn't and didn't). In fact, another mis-representation of history here is including Bulgaria as an enemy of the Soviet Union. Bulgaria never declared war on the USSR or vs/vs either.

The Tripartite Pact was, at best, a 'nullified' mutual defense agreement. Mutual defense pacts are nullified/cancelled as soon as one of the members violates it(ie Nazi-Soviet Pact) or by attacking someone else(ie German invasion of the USSR).
I can prove through quotes from the Oxford Companion to WWII(1995) that not only was the Anti-Comintern Pact NOT considered a military alliance, but that the subsequent new Tripartite Treaty was pretty much nullified even as a mutual defense pact by secret clauses put in at Japan's request.

<If John and Mark convinced Mathew to join their 'anti-bully' alliance, hereby named the 'Lennon Pact', but then started bullying someone else themselves; then the 'anti-bullying' alliance no longer exists. Especially if Mathew refuses to join them in bullying the third party, it is wrong to keep claiming Mathew is allied to them in the 'Lennon Pact'.

No matter how much Hitler and Mussolini might think that they could convince Japan it was obligated to make their enemies Japan's enemies by using the unsigned term 'Axis', that didn't make it so. Same way no matter how much we want to claim Iraq was behind 9/11 won't make it fact. Just because we, the victors, write the history books, doesn't mean everything we say was necessarily true.

If we want to re-define 'military ally' to mean someone who, without declaration of war, severing of relations even trade, otherwise supports one side in a war, then it appears we are being hypocritical.

It could be argued that even before Pearl Harbour the USA traded, cooperated, coordinated even provided combatants with Britain and China far more than Japan ever did with Germany. If, in order to define Japan as a military ally of Germany's in ww2, we have to expand the definition of what makes a military ally to mirror America's relationship with China and Britain before Pearl Harbour, maybe we should re-think our wording here.

We should then state that Japan was at war with the Allies as of Sep 1940(signing of the Tripartite Pact), not Dec 1941.

We can't have it both ways. We can't say this definition applies only to our enemies, not to us. Otherwise we are being the hypocrites so much of the world accuses us of being after-all.

The histories of the former Soviet Union also deny that Japan was part of any active military alliance with Germany, whether you try to arbitrarily rename the Tripartite Pact 'Axis' or not. That is why when Stalin declared war on his invaders in 1941, he did NOT include Japan nor even Bulgaria for that matter. Another historical mis-representation here.

---

I propose that if wikipedia wants to appear historically accurate, neutral and unbiased, that whoever has the final say in editing here, cease supporting the following historical mis-representations (and propaganda?):

a) cease referring to any 'Axis Pact' as an official active military alliance.

Just because we say Iraq, Iran and North Korea are part of some 'Axis of Evil', does not make it historically accurate nor true.

b) cease trying to define any active military alliance 'Axis Pact' by the mutual defense 'Tripartite Pact'.

c) cease referring to the 'Tripartite Pact' as anything but a defunct mutual defense pact.

d) cease referring to Japan as an active military ally of Germany's.

If it were true that the Tripartite Pact was in fact the Axis Pact and an active military alliance between Japan and Germany/Italy, then we might have lost the war in Russia as the Siberian armies that saved the European front in 1941/42 would have been at least facing the Japanese instead.

Japan was no more a member of the 'Axis' than Canada is a member of America's 2002 Coalition Invasion of Iraq. Just because Canada is part of a mutual defense pact with the USA in NORAD, does not make it a member of the USA-led 2002 Coalition against Iraq.

This kind of ignorant, or worse, deliberate mis-representation of historical fact not only makes us appear hypocritically re-writing of history and re-defining of words/terms, but is also what allows leaders of any decade to convince their people to support unnecessary if not unjust war efforts(ie Japan invade China or Pearl Harbour).

I put it to the wikipedia editors to represent unbiased historical fact here.

Thanks for having the patience reading all this over-worded bunk?

Thanks for your time and consideration and please consider all this.

Cheers

---

Japan was a Member of the Axis Alliance!

The reason why Japan did not attack the Soviet Union was that it was not obligated to,
ARTICLE 5. Japan, Germany and Italy affirm that the above agreement affects in no way the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia.

Germany, Italy and Japan even though they not at war with the Soviets simultaneously, they were still united against Britain and it's Commonwealth, the United States and the rest of the Allied nations.

Japan and the Soviet Union did engage each other in 1945(August Storm). If you are basing your arguement on the fact that Japan did not attack the Soviet Union then look at the case of Brazil, Brazil declared war on Germany and Italy in August 1942, receiving lend lease and economic aid from the US, it allowed the use of it's airbases to hunt U-boats and even sent an expeditionary force to Italy (FEB), however Brazil did not declare war on Japan until 6/6/1945([1]/ See Brazil) almost after a month after the German surrender. From your reasoning that means that Brazil was not part of the Allies! The Poland, Norway and Czechoslovakia(whose goverments were in exile) contributed nothing against the war against Imperial Japan yet they are still considered part of the Allies.

Japan was an active military ally of Germany - The Yanagi Missions(as stated in the article), Technical Co-operation(Ki-61 Hien had DB-601 engine, Mitsubishi J8M and Mitsubishi Ki-202 were based on German designs etc., Military co-operation in the form of the Monsun Gruppe.

The Alliance was also referred to as the Axis by German propaganda.

"The Strength of the Axis

National Socialist Germany is in the best position to understand Japan. We and the other nations of the Axis are fighting for the same goals that Japan is fighting for in East Asia, and understand the reasons that forced it to take action. We can also understand the driving force behind Japan's miraculous rise, for we National Socialists also put the spirit over the material. The Axis Pact that ties us to Japan is not a treaty of political convenience like so many in the past, made only to reach a political goal. The Berlin-Rome-Tokyo alliance is a world-wide spiritual program of the young peoples of the world. It is defeating the international alliance of convenience of Anglo-Saxon imperialist monopolists and unlimited Bolshevist internationalism. It is showing the world the way to a better future. In joining the Axis alliance of the young peoples of the world, Japan is using its power not only to establish a common sphere of economic prosperity in East Asia. It is also fighting for a new world order. New and powerful ideas rooted in the knowledge of the present and the historical necessities of the future that are fought for with fanatical devotion have always defeated systems that have outlived their time and lost their meaning."

Das Geheimnis japanischer Kraft (Berlin: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1943).

Rebuttal...how it all makes sense if we just admit they were 2 separate wars that overlapped chronologically.

You wrote: The reason why Japan did not attack the Soviet Union was that it was not obligated to, ARTICLE 5. Japan, Germany and Italy affirm that the above agreement affects in no way the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia.

Not really. You are actually proving my point that we keep trying to redefine a ‘defensive’ alliance as an ‘offensive’ alliance. The actual reason Japan was not obligated to attack the USSR with the German-led alliance was because of Article 3.

ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

So even if there were NO ‘Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact’, between Japan and the USSR before the invasion, Japan was not obligated to declare war on the USSR. It's simple, when part of a 'defense pact', you are only obligated to fight if someone 'attacks' it.

You wrote: Germany, Italy and Japan even though they not at war with the Soviets simultaneously, they were still united against Britain and it's Commonwealth, the United States and the rest of the Allied nations.

Not true. What I am saying is that they were 2 different wars, (like today’s Afghan and Iraq wars). If what you say was true, then the pre-American ‘Allies’ would have been at war with Japan as of April 1940 when the Tripartite Pact was signed. THEY WERE NOT. Not only were the British and Japanese still at peace and trading with eachother, but the British were even stepping up efforts to try to convince Japan to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance 1902 that helped Japan defeat Russian in 1905 and helped Britain defeat Germany in ww1. Remember, until Churchill learnt from Ultra(British reading of German codes) that Hitler was going to betray his alliance with Stalin, he was worried he might have to war with the other half of the Nazi-Soviet alliance too.

As for being united against us;

“…in practice, there was extraordinarily little co-ordination of military or diplomatic activities during the war. Hitler and Mussolini, the leaders of Germany and Italy, undoubtedly admired each other immensely, but this admiration was not shared by their respective military and naval leaders nor by their respective peoples….Japan: In that case there was perhaps and inversion of the situation between Germany and Italy, in that the military and naval leaders did have high regard for the abilities of their wartime partners, but there is no evidence that the two European Axis leaders and Tojo Hideki, the leader of Japan until the summer of 1944, particularily cared for each other. As for Tojo’s successors, Koiso Kuniaki and Suzuki Kantaro, neither had a high opinion of the Euroepan Axis leaders, who in turn appear to have known next to nothing of about either.” (P96 “The Oxford Companion to WWII”)

Zhukov used the new T34s against the Japanese in 1939, the fact that Guderian was totally surprised by them 2 years later shows how 'united' Japan was with Germany. "Zhukov arrived in early June and began gathering a powerful force (35 battalions, 20 cavalry squadrons, 500 aircraft, and 500 of the new and powerful T34 tanks)."

You wrote: Japan and the Soviet Union did engage each other in 1945(August Storm).

True. But then you are excusing everything our enemies did, and deny all the principals we claimed we were fighting the war for by lauding the unprovoked international aggression and betrayal of signed treaties/pacts/agreements. Because the only way your statement came true was by the USSR violating the Japanese-Soviet Non-Aggression/Neutrality/Friendship pact not due to expire until April 1946. Congratulations, you just made my point for me. Either we acknowledge there were 2 separate wars, 2 separate sets of ‘Grand Alliances’, or you demean and dishonor all the principal we claim we fought the wars for.

You Wrote: If you are basing your arguement on the fact that Japan did not attack the Soviet Union then look at the case of Brazil, Brazil declared war on Germany and Italy in August 1942, receiving lend lease and economic aid from the US, it allowed the use of it's airbases to hunt U-boats and even sent an expeditionary force to Italy (FEB), however Brazil did not declare war on Japan until 6/6/1945([1]/ See Brazil) almost after a month after the German surrender. From your reasoning that means that Brazil was not part of the Allies! The Poland, Norway and Czechoslovakia(whose goverments were in exile) contributed nothing against the war against Imperial Japan yet they are still considered part of the Allies.

Again, not true.What I am saying was that the war in Europe and the war in Asia were 2 separate wars. 2 separate groups of alliances. 2 separate military alliances we deliberately, or just simply irresponsibly, confuse by using the same title ‘Allies’ or ‘Grand Alliances’. Once we admit they were 2 separate wars, then it all makes more sense and make us look all the more moral.

You Wrote: From your reasoning that means that Brazil was not part of the Allies! The Poland, Norway and Czechoslovakia(whose goverments were in exile) contributed nothing against the war against Imperial Japan yet they are still considered part of the Allies.

Again, not true. All I am saying is that if we want to portray that period of history accurately, that in the same way we do not include the Finnish Winter War nor the ongoing Chinese Civil War as part of what we call ww2, that we should record there being 2 separate wars: one in the ‘West’(Europe, Mediterranean) and one in the ‘East’(Pacific and East Asia), and therefore 2 separate groups of friends and foes, 2 separate formations of ‘Allies’. Then we also appear more moral historically. All we have to do is refer to our alliance against Germany as the ‘Western Allies’ and that against Japan as the ‘Eastern Allies’; refer to the German-Italian-led European/Mediterranean War as the ‘Axis’ and the Japanese-led war in the East as the GEACPS if you like(Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere) which is how I see it used in Asian history books, just use the initials like we do for NATO or NORAD today.

• I remind you when using these names, these are not actual signed treaty alliances like NATO, they were only nick-names used by either side. There was never any signed document of alliance between even Britain, France and Poland at the start titled ‘Grand Alliance’ anymore than there was ever any signed document of alliance between Germany, Japan and Italy titled ‘Axis’.

In the European Conflict: September 1939 to June 1941 Grand Alliance = British-led French, Polish, Dutch, Dane, Belgian, Norwegian London governments-in-exile Versus Axis Alliance = German Reich and her agreed vassals and Italy (*Finland, for instance, wanted war only with the USSR to regain her territory we let Stalin take from her by naked force no different that Hitler; while Bulgaria wanted to make sure she was never at war with the USSR.) June 1941-May 1945 Grand Alliance = same as above with the addition of the United States and at the very end the rest of the Latin American nations.

In what the Japanese call the Greater East Asian Conflict: July 1937 to December 1941 KMT or Nationalist China, sometimes allied to sometimes fighting Mao’s CCP, Chinese Communist Party or Reds. Versus Imperial Japan December 1941 to September 1945 Grand Alliance including the United States and the KMT, with the USSR entering in the very end literally. Versus Imperial Japan, Siam(Thailand) and east-asian independence-minded puppet regimes like Emperor Pu Yi’s Manchukuo, Wang Ching Wei’s Nationalist Chinese, Bose India, Sukarno Indonesia and so on.

You see, this is the very danger of mis-using, intentional or not, terms and words that are not actually official historical documents. For example. We use the term ‘Grand Alliance’ or ‘Allies’ to describe an activated military alliance in WW1 that included Japan and Italy, and again use the term ‘Allies’ to describe on group in WW2 that does NOT include Japan and Italy. Not a big deal, except of course you can tell the ‘anti-Japanese’ wikipedia sites here because they do not mention Japan as a member of the ‘Allies’ despite it being and undisputed historical fact by English and Japanese historians. But when, in our propaganda, we tried to make ourselves look more moral than we were and try to imply America was standing up to the Nazis all the time, and try to make the world out to be black and white, we tried to link the 2 separate wars into 1, just like we try to link Saddam Hussein and Iraq to 9/11 today, we over-generalized into using 2 mis-leading nick-names, ‘Axis’ and ‘Allies’.

It’s not really an impossible distinction for us to grasp, seriously, we are bright enough in America.

Today we use the term ‘coalition’ to describe 2 different groups of allied nations in 2 different wars at the exact same time. There is the Iraq-war ‘coalition’ and the ‘Afghan-war ‘coalition’. While some nations are included in both ‘coalitions’, most are not. Most of the NATO members who agree to the term’coalition’ in Afghanistan, like Canada, Germany, Holland etc, are NOT members of the ‘coalition’ in Iraq. So even today, we use the same title of an alliance to refer to 2 different wars at the very same time, in this case, right next to eachother even. But if you tell a Canadian, German or Hollander etc that they are members of the same ‘coalition’ at war in Iraq, they will take great offense at your ignorance.

The very same applies to the 2 different ‘allies’ in what we(but not everyone), call WW2 or the Second World War. Just because Stalin agreed to join the ‘other’ ‘Allies’ in the Far East after the war in Europe was finished, does NOT mean he was always a member of those ‘Allies’.

That is no more true than saying that the USA was a member of the ‘Allies’ since 1939.

That’s why post-ww2, we gave definate agreed-upon names and titles to our future alliances. We had NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and we had what we called the Warsaw Pact. We do not confuse NATO with NORAD, the American-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command.

Although admittedly we are obviously back at it again with our propagandists and spin-doctors counting on we humans being too simple-minded and lazy to realize that the NATO-led war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Alquaeda in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, is still trying to be referred to as the same alliance mission as the American and British(almost exclusively)-led ‘coalition’ in Iraq to try to cover-up another historical lie and morale embarassment just because they convince the media and historians to keep repeating it enough that it becomes entrenched in history books even if it isn’t true. Like my books that still say Colombus was the first European to discover the Americas, when in fact it was the Vikings.

Now do you see how dangerous it is when describing diplomatic and military terms, names, titles and even nick-names incorrectly/inaccurately? I can’t help but wonder if my student is right, and the reason western historian go along with inaccurately using the dangerously over-generalised terms ‘Axis’ and ‘Allies’ is the same reason that today these same historians feel they have to refer to both admittedly separate missions in Afghanistan and Iraq by the same term ‘coalition’….just to cover up that we made serious morale mistakes. In ww2, it was to hide the fact that America was not standing up to Nazism and all from the start; and today, that we got totally bamboozled into redirecting our efforts away from the real culprits behind 9/11.

Let’s stop being historical hypocrites and start re-earning the world’s trust!

A Global War

First of all - I'M NOT AN AMERICAN

Alliance- Regardless if it was defensive or offensive. The point is that it was an alliance – there was co-operation, it might not have been on the scale as the allies nevertheless, (again) U-boats operated from Japanese occupied Penang in Malay against shipping in the Indian Ocean and U-862 operated in the Pacific off Australia and sank an American steamer [2], and circumnavigated Australia. A Secondary base was established at Kobe, Japan, and small repair bases at Singapore, Jakarta and Surabaya.[3] U-boats in the Far East

Germany and Japan both traded raw materials and exchanged technology (German-Japanese Technical Cooperation by raiders/merchant ships and later submarines(Yanagi Missions)(German Type X submarine). The Ki-61 had a German engine, J8M was a Japanese copy of the Me-163 and Ki-201 of the Me-262, the Germans also sold the Japanese a Tiger tank for 600,000. The Me-109 was also tested by the Japanese.Me-109 tested in Japan

In 1945 U-234 sailed for Japan with two Japanese officers - carrying 560kg of Uranium Oxide, two Me 262 aircraft and 10 jet engines. After the armistice the U-234 surrendered to the Americans with the Japanese onboard committing suicide. U-219 and U-195 reached Japanese occupied Indonesia in December 1944, together carrying 12 dismantled V-2 Rockets. The Japanese I-30, I-29 and I-8 arrived in German occupied Europe in 1942 ,1943 and 1944 respectively where the officers and crews were greeted with enthusiasm by the Germans including Admiral Doenitz.Youtube - Japanese submarine I-8 visits Europe.

Italian Submarines also operated in the Indian Ocean/Pacific, Commandante Cappellini’’ and Luigi Torelli both served with Italian crews, then after the Italian surrender, they were transferred to the Germans in the Pacific as UIT-24 and UIT-25, then after the German surrender they were taken over by the Japanese navy as the I-503 and I-504. ‘’ These two submarines were the only two submarines which flew all three flags of the Axis powers of the Second World War.’’ [4] An Italian Aircraft flew from Europe to Japanese Manchuria in 1942[5].

If it was not an alliance why did Germany share their most secret weapons and projects with the Japanese. Why did German and Italian Submarines operate in the Pacific and Indian Oceans from Japanese bases, why did Japan send submarines to Europe and why did the Japanese army attaché visit Leningrad during 1943. Youtube – Japanese Visit Leningrad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFX 1 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical Documents

Quote - "There was never any signed document of alliance between even Britain, France and Poland at the start titled ‘Grand Alliance’ anymore than there was ever any signed document of alliance between Germany, Japan and Italy titled ‘Axis’."
"Now do you see how dangerous it is when describing diplomatic and military terms, names, titles and even nick-names incorrectly/inaccurately?"

However, there were official documents that contained the term Allies and Axis and they are accurate. They were not nick names.

Inter-Allied Council Statement on the Principles of the Atlantic Charter : September 24, 1941

Washington Conference Draft
The Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Belgium, China, Czecho-Slovakia, Greece, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Yugo-Slavia,

Having subscribed to a common programme of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Great Britain dated August 14th, 1941 and known as the Atlantic Charter,....

1.Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources against the Axis forces of conquest and to continue such employment until these forces have been finally defeated

2.Each Government pledges itself to the other Governments associated in this Declaration to effect the full coordination of its military effort and the use of its resources against the common enemies;

3.Each Government pledges itself to continue war against, and not to make a separate peace with the common enemies or any of them.

Italy
Armistice with Italy; September 3, 1943
Armistice with Italy Amendment of Instrument of Surrender; November 9, 1943

Romania
The Armistice Agreement with Rumania; September 12, 1944
Paris Peace Treaty

Bulgaria
The Armistice Agreement with Bulgaria; October 28, 1944
Paris Peace Treaty

Hungary
Allied Control Commission Armistice Agreement with Hungary; January 20, 1945
The functions of the Allied Control Commission in Hungary shall consist of the regulation and control, for the period up to the conclusion of peace, over the exact fulfillment of the armistice terms set forth in the agreement concluded on January 20, 1945, between the governments of the Soviet Union, United Kingdom and the United States of America on the one hand and the Provisional Government of Hungary on the other. The Allied Control Commission shall be headed by a Chairman who shall be the representative of the Soviet armed forces. Attached to him there shall be: a vice-chairman of the Commission; a political adviser; two assistants to the Chairman; a chief of staff of the Commission.

Austria
Austria

German Surrender and Occupation
Agreement Between the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic on Certain Additional Requirements to be Imposed on Germany; September 20, 1945
Declaration Regarding the Defeat of Germany and the Assumption of Supreme Authority by Allied Powers; June 5, 1945

Japanese Surrender
We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers. We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under the Japanese control wherever situated....
-Japanese surrender documents

Organisations
Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force - SHAEF
Allied Commission
Allied Council for Japan

"You see, this is the very danger of mis-using, intentional or not, terms and words that are not actually official historical documents."

YOU WERE SAYING? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFX 1 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union and Japan

Quotes "But then you are excusing everything our enemies did, and deny all the principals we claimed we were fighting the war for by lauding the unprovoked international aggression and betrayal of signed treaties/pacts/agreements. Because the only way your statement came true was by the USSR violating the Japanese-Soviet Non-Aggression/Neutrality/Friendship pact not due to expire until April 1946"
...The very same applies to the 2 different ‘allies’ in what we(but not everyone), call WW2 or the Second World War. Just because Stalin agreed to join the ‘other’ ‘Allies’ in the Far East after the war in Europe was finished, does NOT mean he was always a member of those ‘Allies’.

Allied Conferences
During the the second Moscow conference and the Tehran Conference conducted in late 1943, and in the latter conference - the Soviet Union agreed to commit Soviet forces against Japan after the defeat of Germany.(Tehran Conference) A four nation declaration was also issued during second Moscow conference in which -

The governments of the United States of America, United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China;

United in their determination, in accordance with the declaration by the United Nations of January, 1942, and subsequent declarations, to continue hostilities against those Axis powers with which they respectively are at war until such powers have laid down their arms on the basis of unconditional surrender;.....
1. That their united action, pledged for the prosecution of the war against their respective enemies, will be continued for the organization and maintenance of peace and security.
2. That those of them at war with a common enemy will act together in all matters relating to the surrender and disarmament of that enemy....
-Moscow conference 1943

The final Moscow Conference, between Churchill and Stalin also involved the discussion on the details for the Soviet Union's entry in the war against Japan. The Yalta conference subsequent Yalta Protocol/declaration in february, 1945 further stated that -
The leaders of the three great powers - the Soviet Union, the United States of America and Great Britain - have agreed that in two or three months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated, the Soviet Union shall enter into war against Japan on the side of the Allies....-Yalta declaration(see AGREEMENT REGARDING JAPAN).

Soviet denunciation of Neutrality pact, 5th April[6]
...-The neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan was concluded on April 13, 1941, that is, before the attack of Germany on the USSR and before the outbreak of war between Japan on the one hand and England and the United States on the other. Since that time the situation has been basically altered. Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR. Furthermore Japan is waging a war with the USA and England, which are allies of the Soviet Union.

In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense, and the prolongation of that pact has become impossible.

On the strength of the above and in accordance with Article Three of the above mentioned pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the lapse of the five year period of operation of the pact, the Soviet Government hereby makes know to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941......

Potsdam and Russian declaration of war
The Potsdam conference [7] also resulted in a proclamation against Japan. The Russian delcaration of war on the 8th of August stated that -

After the defeat and capitulation of Hitlerite Germany, Japan remained the only great power which still stands for the continuation of the war.

The demand of the three powers, the United States, Great Britain and China, of July 26 for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces was rejected by Japan. Thus the proposal made by the Japanese Government to the Soviet Union for mediation in the Far East has lost all foundation.

Taking into account the refusal of Japan to capitulate, the Allies approached the Soviet Government with a proposal to join the war against Japanese aggression and thus shorten the duration of the war, reduce the number of casualties and contribute toward the most speedy restoration of peace.

True to its obligation as an Ally, the Soviet Government has accepted the proposal of the Allies, and has joined in the declaration of the Allied powers of July 26.........[8]

Conclusion The Soviets signed the United Nations pact on January 1, 1942 as a result were considered part of the allies. Both the Soviet Union and Japan maintained peace, in order not to fight a two front war and focus their attentions elsewhere - Russian in Europe against Germany and Japan in the Pacific against the United States. Soviet Union denounced the pact and it's agreements with the Western allies took precedence.

Quoted - "Zhukov used the new T34s against the Japanese in 1939, the fact that Guderian was totally surprised by them 2 years later shows how 'united' Japan was with Germany. "Zhukov arrived in early June and began gathering a powerful force (35 battalions, 20 cavalry squadrons, 500 aircraft, and 500 of the new and powerful T34 tanks)."

That’s Inaccurate and Impossible the T-34 did not series production until September 1940, it was only in it’s prototype form in 1939 – at the time of Nomonhan/Kalhin Gol.[9][10] (see also T-34) It was BT-5 cruiser tanks and T-26s’ which were present in the skirmish against Japan.

United States and Britain

Quote - "Not only were the British and Japanese still at peace and trading with each other, but the British were even stepping up efforts to try to convince Japan to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance 1902 that helped Japan defeat Russian in 1905 and helped Britain defeat Germany in ww1. Remember, until Churchill learnt from Ultra(British reading of German codes) that Hitler was going to betray his alliance with Stalin, he was worried he might have to war with the other half of the Nazi-Soviet alliance too"

No, that’s not accurate - what Churchill wanted was for the United States to enter the War, Britain was being kept alive by material from America,

On September 2, 1940 Britain and the US signed the Destroyers for Bases Agreement and the following year concluded the lend lease agreement, Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article." – American weapons and war material were being shipped to Great Britain. Churchill and Roosevelt also agreed on the terms of the Atlantic Charter on 14 August, 1942.

The British needed American Industrial strength to defeat Germany Churchill new this. Why would they endanger their future alliance by seeking terms with Japan, you also have to recognize of course that Churchill’s mother was an American. There might have been certain British diplomats that sought an agreement with Japan however the British as a nation never contemplated such action.

Trading with each other
What’s your point, German and the Soviet Union were trading with each other right up till Operation Barbarossa, this was done to keep the element of surprise(by the Germans) even though Stalin was informed by ULTRA.

Quotes "...then the pre-American ‘Allies’ would have been at war with Japan as of April 1940 when the Tripartite Pact was signed. THEY WERE NOT’ That is no more true than saying that the USA was a member of the ‘Allies’ since 1939."..."That is no more true than saying that the USA was a member of the ‘Allies’ since 1939."

Once Japan went to war in 1941 – Britain and the Commonwealth, the United States, and a number of the Allied nations were at war with Japan. The United States, did however take measures even before it’s entry that were considered belligerent, Cash and Carry – which was designed to help Britain and France 1939, Destroyers for bases(mentioned above), the Lend lease argeement(mentioned above), after Germany invaded the Soviet Union the United States agreed to give supplies to the Soviets[11].

Starting in mid-April [1941] US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic, reporting their observations to the British. At the same time, British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May 12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired in the USA, contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields.

On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military operations. On July 10 Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox announced that the US Navy was under orders to fire against German warships. Five days later, a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a British convoy. Also in 1941 a large naval expansion program was approved[12]

On September 11 [1941], USN had been given the order to fire against all Axis ships. In September, US patrols attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On October 17 the US destroyer Kearny attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on November 6, US naval forces seized the German ship Odenwald and escorted her to an American port, and imprisoned its crew. The USS Reuben James was sunk by a U-boat three months before America's entry into World War II.

America also took semi-belligerent action against Japan in September 1940; at the time of the signing of the Tripartite pact when Japan established a pressence in French Indochina - it embargoed scrap metal to Japan. In July 1941, Japan occupied the southern half of French Indochina which resulted in the freezing of Japanese assests in America and the embargoing of oil.

Quote "United Against Us"
Germany, Italy and Japan WERE fighting Britain and the United States together from 1941 even though Italy left, the RSI continued in Nothern Italy. Germany in the Atlantic with u-boats and later Western Europe, Germany and Italy in North Africa later Italy itself and Japan in South East Asia and in the Pacific and Philipines.

Quote "All we have to do is refer to our alliance against Germany as the ‘Western Allies"

The term Western Allies was/is already used to describe the United States, Britain/ it’s Commonwealth and exiled forces from Occupied Europe.