Talk:Axis powers

Status of Vichy France

Some sources, including this legal study of the law of co-belligerency, consider Vichy France a co-belligerent on the Axis side. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Then its fine to have it there then.Isabella Emma (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Have cited it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Havsjö and Beyond My Ken: Vichy France waged war against Britain (which is co-belligerence with the Axis), but I am inclined to agree with removal from the infobox. Srnec (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If they were a co-belligerent, why remove it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Because "co-belligerence" alone is a low bar? Finland and Germany fought side by side. Japan and Thailand fought side by side invading Burma. The Soviets and the Germans simultaneously invaded Poland. Germany and Italy even provided air support to Iraq. But Vichy France received less support that Iraq and unlike Iraq was technically in a state of war with Germany. (Unless I'm misremembering something.) Vichy France was not treated like post-armistice Italy, Romania and Bulgaria were by the Allies. It meets only the barest definition of a co-belligerent: "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy". But I don't have a strong opinion on the infobox provided it isn't outright false. Srnec (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

We say what the reliable sources say, we don't decide based on what level you (or I) personally think the bar is set at. We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick. Certainly no-one who wants to avoid being blocked will continue to delete reliable academic sources that disagree with their personal view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't remove any sourced information, nor did I question the source you quoted. Drop the attitude. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Vichy France was most certainly not in the state of war with Germany. An armistice is less than a full fledged peace treaty but it can end state of war as well. Vichy France was most certainly an ally or a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany. Volunteer Marek 05:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Vichy France was most certainly in a state of war with Germany (and Italy). That is how contemporaries saw it. That is why French POWs remained POWs. The same thing applies, inter alia, to Italy and the Allies after 1943. (Citations can be provided.) The armistice does not end the state of war, just the shooting. I do not deny that Vichy France was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany in the technical sense, only that its active belligerence was minimally coordinated with that of the other Axis powers, far less so than any of the other co-belligerents listed (even the USSR and Iraq). Or is there some act of belligerence I'm missing? Srnec (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Srnec, I think you are right, but where do we draw the line? We can agree it was less co-belligerent than USSR (until the invasion of USSR at least) but see how much opposition is there to the listing of USSR below. I think the line should be simply based on what RS say. If they say France was co-belligerent, and if there is no description of such viewpoint as fringe, then we just report what the sources say. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

In her "Co-Belligerency", Yale Journal of International Law (2017), Rebecca Ingber cites Bradley&Goldsmith, and puts that article into a proper context. It says that Bradley&Goldsmith (who worked for the US government) wrote their work to justify US action against the states that supported Al Qaida, and they used Vichy as a precedent. However, according that that article, there are serious problem with their arguments, and this York University School of Law web site provides a convincing counter-arguments against Vichy's co-belligerence. Importantly, according to the NYU school of law article, Bradley&Goldsmith were originators of the idea of Vichy co-belligerency, therefore, we can conclude that that view didn't exist before that date, and, most likely, it still reflects mostly US view. Therefore, Vichy France should be removed from the infobox, and its potential co-belligerency should be discussed in a separate section devoted to controversial cases.

Interestingly, although Bradley&Goldsmith's article is being widely cited, majority references are not in a context of Vichy France (only 13 documents from that list mention Vichy), which means Vichy France is not a focus of that article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is controversial, but per the mother article's definiton (co-belligerence), certainly there was a period when she was like that.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a RS. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I know, but terminologies and articles should be consisntent in it.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

AFAIK, Vichy never attacked the Allies, they were just fighting back, which is consistent with a behaviour of truly neutral states. Anyway, I got no reasonable counterarguments, so I remove Vichy. Please, do not restore it without providing better sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And I have reverted your edit. Ignoring arguments from other people that do not fit in your POV is not the way consensus works. The Banner talk 18:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I saw no arguments, and, importantly, no sources. Per WP:ONUS, responsibility is on those who adds a contested material. please, self-revert addition of poorly sourced material that is contested by reliable sources and is definitely non-neutral. If no arguments, supported by reliable sources, will follow in next week, I am going to revert you.

In addition, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is a personal attack. I suggest you either provide evidences or to refrain form accusing me of POV pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I see no counterarguments in one week, so I remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it has already been removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of USSR in the infobox

USSR was already present (I don't have time to check who added it), so I expanded the note [1]. This was challenged [2]. I concur USSR was never recognized as an Axis power, but per quote added [3] it acted as an important German ally in the early years. I think it is more reasonable to include it in the 'Co-belligerent' list but this was challenged as well ([4]) with a request for an explicit citation. Well, the source explicitly states it was an ally so... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC) PS. Here's a reliable (academic journal) source that uses the term co-belligerent in the relevant context: [5] "The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Source says: "It is worth clarifying that the Nazi-Soviet Pact was not an alliance as such, it was a treaty of non-aggression". Short term arrangement with Germany is not the same as entire Axis.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes but it also says "Hitler and Stalin were allies in all but name" - in other words, Moorehouse is saying that it wasn't an "alliance" on paper but that is what it was indeed. Volunteer Marek 09:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This [6] also uses the term "Nazi-Soviet alliance" and that's from a historian pretty sympathetic to SU under Stalin. Volunteer Marek 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And here (political scientist). Volunteer Marek 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Here, pages 116-7, 156-158. Volunteer Marek 09:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And here (historian). Volunteer Marek 09:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And here (also historian). Volunteer Marek 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And here (professor of Holocaust Studies). Volunteer Marek 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This source [7] refers to them as "co-belligerents", 2nd page. Here's the text: "As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17". Volunteer Marek 08:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Volunteer Marek, Thanks, particularly for the second RS for co-belligerent. I think it is a better term than an ally, technically, and I'd support just moving USSR to the co-belligerent section, that mas my initial intention anyway. The term 'ally' is IMHO both less correct and more controversial (but since it is a common term it is more widely used than the technical term co-belligerent). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Those sources are in a minotrity, and discuss Nazi-Soviet relations and not the Axis Powers. Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent. Both make the opposite point, that the Axis was opposed to the Soviet Union, communism, and the Comintern from 1936.--Astral Leap (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This info has been in article for many many years so you need WP:CONSENSUS to remove it. Second, please show that "these sources are in the minority". Above I listed prominent historians, political scientists and Holocaust scholars who say otherwise. Third, obviously at various points the Axis was opposed to SU etc., which is what these sources say. However, during 1939-1941 they were allies and co-belligerents.

I should also mention that if someone reverts with an edit summary that says "discussion is ongoing" [8] THE LEAST they can do is to actually... bother participating in the discussion before blind reverting. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

In an alliance, the citizens of the two countries know about the connection. The explicit agreement to cooperate is widely known. The USSR and Germany did not have this arrangement. The historians who are comparing the division of Poland to an alliance are using hyperbole. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure where you're getting this from - sounds like your own original research - but "citizens of the two countries know about the connection" is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be an "alliance". In fact it has nothing to do with it and I've never seen a source define it this way. I have seen however, and provided above, numerous sources which refer to it as an "alliance". The fact that you think "historians are (...) using hyperbole" is neither here nor there. We go with sources not with whether some editor thinks those sources are wrong. Volunteer Marek 00:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously, the secret codicil to divide Poland between them complicates assessing the nature of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Without it, it's simply a non-aggression pact, similar to the one which Nazi Germany had with Poland, and we would not list Poland as an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis Powers on that basis. With the codicil, the agreement has at least one aspect that is alliance-like. However, as the quote provided by Piotrus quite clearly says, as close as it might have come to being one (which really wasn't very close at all) it was not an alliance, it was essentially an agreement to look the other way while each party took the part of Poland that had been agreed to. To me, that does not qualify the Soviet Union as either an ally or a co-belligerent.
  I'd make the comparison with Roosevelt's dealings with the UK prior to Pearl Harbor. He took the US as close as possible to being an ally or co-belligerent as a neutral power could do, and historians all, make note of that, but none go so far as to call the US an ally or co-belligerent of the UK until after Germany declared war on the US and the US responded in kind.
  History is hardly ever clean and clear-cut, and it's up to historians to make evaluations of the nature of things based on the evidence presented. I haven't looked at the cites Volunteer Marek has presented above, but I have no doubt that they say what VM says they do, however the consensus of historians do not agree that the USSR was ever an ally of Nazi Germany, nor a co-belligerent, and some carefully selected citations does not change that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, let's leave original research out of this please (no, the agreement was not similar to the one with Poland). Likewise, the comparisons with UK and US are original research. Did US invade Germany when it went to war with UK in 1939? No. If IT HAD we would most certainly call US an ally or a co-belligerent in 1939. This is a false analogy, again. We go with sources. And what the source quoted by Piotrus says is that while it wasn't an alliance on paper, in practice it very much was. Additionally we have numerous other sources which refer to this as an alliance or to SU as "co-belligerents". You are asserting that "consensus of historians" doesn't agree with the sources I presented but you haven't actually provided any sources of your own (ones which say "no, it wasn't an alliance"). If you wish to make this argument then you need to provide sources of your own, not just blithely dismiss the ones I provided (since they are RS). EVEN THEN - if you did provide such sources - we would obviously have to list both views. But right now, only one view has sources for support and it's the "allies/co-belligerents" one. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You've mistaken a talk page discussion for a Wikipedia article. In Wikipedia articles, only material supported by citations from reliable sources are acceptable, but a talk page consensus discussion is a different animal altogether. It is perfectly legitimate to use analogies and other rhetorical devices to attempt to convince others of the validity of one's point. For myself, a good coherent argument is certainly to be preferred over a handful of cherry-picked citations which do notaccurately represent the consensus of experts on the subject, and a misinterpretation of a quote which says, point blank, that it was not an alliance, and that Germany and the Soviet Union were not allies, to mean that they were allies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, The quote clearly says they were not legally allies but acted like allies and were allies in all but a name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

BMK, no, I'm sorry but that's not how this works. The talk page is NOT a place to post your own personal original research and on that basis decide what article content should be. We follow sources. The talk page is for providing sources which support your view. You have not done that AT ALL. You've only asserted, without basis, that the sources *I* provided "do not represent consensus of experts". How do we know they don't? Because you said so? Sorry, not good enough. Provide sources to back that up. Otherwise Wikipedia policy says we follow the sources we do have. Volunteer Marek 05:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, First, I concur that the case for co-belligerence is much stronger than for the alliance. Second, we have presented two reliable academic sources that explicitly describe USSR as a co-belligerent. This is what you asked for in the edit summary here: [9]. Now that the sources saying this have been presented, are you raising the bar higher? And with what? Do you have any RS that say USSR should not be considered a co-belligerent? We have two sources for and zero against such a description. I think the reasonable compromise is to describe USSR as a co-belligerent for the period 1939-1941 (and not as an ally). Lastly, common sense can be invoked. Definition of co-belligerence is "the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy with or without a formal treaty of military alliance." Soviet Union invaded Poland and fought a number of battles against Polish military. What else would you call it if not co-belligerence? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC) PS. I would like to quote User:Peacemaker67 who in a section right above (concerning the term co-belligerence being used for Vichy) said "We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick." How is this case any different? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

She article is about the Axis Powers, not about Nazi Germany. So, if the cites presented call the USSR a "co-belligerent" with the Axis Powers (which you'll remember did not fight in the invasion of Poland), then go ahead and add them to the infobox, but if they only say that the USSR was (briefly) a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany only for the invasion of Poland. Since the infobox is supposed to be a precis of facts presented in the article, add to the article that because of such-and-such, so-and-so and so-and-so classify the USSR as a co-belligerent with the Axis Powers. But, again, if only to Nazi Germany, it's not germane to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Are you saying Nazi Germany was not an Axis Power? Or that the Axis Power did not exist in September 1939? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I am saying that although Nazi Germany was at the core of the Axis, it's not necessarily that case that a country with X relationship with Nazi Germany had X relationship with the Axis Powers. Of course, any country which fought side-by-side with the Axis against the Allies should be examined for consideration as being an Axis Power, but even that doesn't necessarily make it the case. Finland, for instance, is almost never considered to be an Axis Power, although its status here as a co-belligerent is a reasonable conclusion. The same for Vichy France, if a bit less obviously. The thing is that these relationships are hardly ever black and white. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I don't follow how you can be ok with including Finland here but not USSR. What is the difference? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Finland fought for years against an ally, the Soviet Union, with German assistance. German troops were on Finnish soil, participating in the war.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to also remind everyone that this info was in the article for YEARS. Piotrus tried to offer a clarification, BMK reverted him and then proceeded to completely remove the info altogether. In absence of consensus we go back to what the original version was until the dispute is resolved. Volunteer Marek 05:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Since the lasted revert [10] mentioned lack of references, here they are: 1) Hager, Robert P. (2017-03-01). ""The laughing third man in a fight": Stalin's use of the wedge strategy". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 50 (1): 15–27. doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002. ISSN 0967-067X. The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland 2) Blobaum, Robert (1990). "The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41". Problems of Communism. 39: 106. As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Regarding adding sources [11] (which I think is a good practice, of course) may I suggest adding relevant quotations? I provided two relevant in my previous post just above. Also, I wonder - you added Hager (2017) but not Blobaum (1990)? Any reason for the omission? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't wanna ref bomb it but I think that can be added as well. Volunteer Marek 06:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact. The Polish government, who fled from Poland during the German invasion, tried to push the notion that the Soviet Union acted against the Allies, but the Allies and the international community would have none of it. Churchill himself welcomed the Soviet move, saying on 1 October 1939 that: "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.” [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC) — Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• WP:V is quite clear that any unsourced material in a Wikipedia artifcle can be removed at will, regardless of how long it's been in the article. The information I removed was "referenced" only by a "see" pointer to another Wikipedia article, and WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so, in other words, it was never referenced at all, and should have been removed ages ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes but this is moot since multiple sources HAVE BEEN provided. Volunteer Marek 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Erin Vaxx - Please do not remove sourced data as you did here twice [13] Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

IT is perfectly legitimate to remove material which is sourced with citations which do not directly support the claims being made, and that is the case here. To include the USSR as an "Axis Power", one needs a citation which says explicitly that "'he USSR was an Axis power". To say that the USSR was a "co-belligerent" with the Axis powers, a source which says specifically that the USSR "was a co-belligerent with the Axis powers", and so on. Citations cannot make some vaguely related claim, they must say exactly what is being claimed in the article. This is really basic Wikipedia stuff, which you and VM and Piotrus know like the backs of your hands, so please please stop castigating other editors for following basic Wikipedia policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. BMK, NO ONE IS SAYING USSR WAS AN AXIS POWER!!! Please stop it with the false strawman. The USSR is being is listed as a "co-belligerent" Just like Finland, Vichy France etc. which were also NOT Axis Powers. The sources have been provided.

This is extremely frustrating.

First long standing info is removed. When someone restores it, it's reverted again with edit summaries which claim that this is new info.

Then the info is removed again under the pretense of no sources. When it's restored with sources it's removed anyway.

When the sources are provided to directly support the text, it is then falsely claimed that... no sources have been provided.

It's hard to see how this is constructive. How exactly are we suppose to resolve a dispute with this kind of argumentation?

Let's keep the article at the state it's been in, except now with the info properly sourced and finish the discussion here first. Volunteer Marek 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken - German–Soviet Axis talks - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, It's splitting hair. Nazi Germany was an Axis Power. We have sources that say USSR was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany. It's simple logic that a co-belligerent of a country A that belongs to an grouping (alliance?) B makes said co-belligerent also co-belligerent to that other grouping. Or think about it the other way. Poland was an Ally, right? Who fought Allies in WWII?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

^^^^ Original research ^^^^^. When the Soviet Union entered Poland on 17 September, the Polish military and government were in a state of collapse, not much fighting. The allies did not recognize this as an act of war against the alliance. Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it’s not. As already pointed out Britannica and USHMM are TERTIARY sources (whose target audience is school children so it’s unsurprising they simplify and omit some info), here we use SECONDARY sources which explicitly call Soviet Union “allies” and “co-belligerents” of Nazi Germany in 1939-1941. Volunteer Marek 13:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus and Volunteer Marek: The terms "Axis" and "Allies" refer to specific groups (or blocks) of countries that fought each other to the end of the war, and AFAIK the USSR is only ever considered part of the latter. If we're to claim otherwise we need sources that state so explicitly; the USSR's cooperation with Nazi Germany at the beginning of the war is not enough to establish that association, and would indeed constitute WP:OR. François Robere (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

One more time, no one is saying that USSR was part of the Axis. Quit it with the strawman already. The text is about USSR being a "co-belligerent" or an ally of Nazi Germany. Volunteer Marek 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in this entire discussion myself and Piotrus are the ONLY editors to have actually bothered to provide sources. Everyone else opposing this is just posting their own personal feelings and original research on the matter.

Folks, you need to provide sources. That's how Wikipedia works. If you can't provide actual sources to support your position then you're just wasting talk page space. The talk page that right at the top says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

Sources please. Volunteer Marek 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Both Astral Leap (Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power... Both make the opposite point...) and Erin Vaxx (Carlton's Churchill and the Soviet Union) cite sources. I'll add Weinberg's World at Arms, which explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's The Second World War, which gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; The Routledge atlas of the Second World War (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders... etc. Now can we lay this to rest? François Robere (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Both Astral Leap and Erin Voxx (especially that one) are new accounts which jumped right into controversial topics. Neither of them have cited sources to support their point of view. They mentioned sources which ... don't say anything either way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I show you a source which says "X is true" and you come back to me and show me a source which ... doesn't say anything about X either way, then that does not mean that X is not true. Obviously.

Find a source which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies or co-belligerents between 1939 and 1941.

And now we have a whole freakin' brigade of sockpuppets on this article.

Volunteer Marek 18:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I've actually checked Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica), and they both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source, albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same. My contributed sources (Weinberg, Snyder and Gilbert) are also explicit on this.

I would gladly find you a source which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies, but you already had me in absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. François Robere (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, no one's disputing that USSR and US/UK were Allies after 1941. Question is about 1939-1941 as anyone who even glances at this discussion should be able to figure out. Stop it with the strawman. Volunteer Marek 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And please, by all means, find me that source. I've been asking for it repeatedly so it's about someone actually tried. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

VM, your question (if I understand it correctly) is incorrectly formulated. Noone has to provide a source saying USSR was not Nazi Germany's ally. Moreover, even if such a source would be provided, that cannot be an ultimate proof that it was not, because such a source may represent a minority viewpoint. A correct approach would be to determine how 1939-41 Soviet-Nazi relations are described in majority sources. To do that, let's try the approach proposed by me. This approach is as follows: using different sets of neutrally selected keywords, find sources on that subject, and then check which sources are cited by those sources. Based on the information found in those sources, new search phrases are formulated, and the procedure repeated. If this iterative process repeatedly yields the same set of sources, we can conclude that the procedure has converged, so we identified a set of sources that represent a majority viewpoint (or a set of significant minority viewpoints).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because your reasoning implies that “if not every source says X then X is not true”. You will have some sources which simplify. You will have other sources which focus on some other aspect of the topic. You can’t expect all or even most sources to say X. At the end of the day you can only look at whether sources say “X” or “not X”. And right now all we have is sources which say X where X=USSR and Nazi Germany were allies in 1939-1941. Volunteer Marek 07:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur we don't need sources to prove the negative. But we have sources that say the Soviet Union was a Nazi ally (or co-belligerent) and no sources to dispute them. To be clear, nobody is disputing USSR status as an Ally and part of the Big Three. But there is no contradiction in being in both camps, changing sides. Well, just to be clear, nobody is also arguing USSR was part of the Axis. Co-belligerence (or being an ally) of a group is not the same as being a part of the group, and we have a section here called co-belligerence. Why shouldn't USSR be in it? They co-invaded Poland (an Ally) together with Nazi Germany and this led to many scholars calling them an ally or co-belligerent of Nazi Germay. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, we are not proving a logical syllogism here. We are simply trying to figure out what sources say. The question “were Nazi Germany and USSR allies in 1939-1941” is pretty straight forward and of obvious academic interest to historians. If it’s controversial then you would naturally expect some sources to say “yes they were” and some to say “no they weren’t” and some to not address the question at all (cuz they focus on something else). But here we actually only have sources which say “yes they were” and some which don’t address the question. To draw the conclusion from that that they weren’t, when No sources which say “no they weren’t” have been provided is kind of absurd. Volunteer Marek 07:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say there are three groups of sources: (i) the sources that describe Nazi-Soviet relationship as a de facto military alliance; (ii) the sources that apply the word "alliance"/"ally" in its colloquial meaning (i.e. they say Nazi-Soviet relationships were relatively frendly, but they do not say it was a real military alliance), and (iii) the sources saying otherwise. The fact that the group (iii) do not dispute with group (i) sources may mean that the (iii) group sources represent a fringe viewpoint, or that they represent majority/mainstream views. Based on the information available to me, I conclude the second explanation is the most plausible. However, I propose to clarify that question by doing a joint literature search.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I am not sure how this can be done quantitatively. Why don't you reply to my earlier queries about how can we justify the Soviet invasion of Poland as not fitting into the plain English definition of co-belligerence? We have RS for this being described and such and it fits the definition to a letter. What do we need a literature review for? To prove this is not a fringe view? That again seems like a request to prove the negative. Which reliable sources say it is a fringe view? If not, it's sufficient we have sources for co-belligerence. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the section that I created below is partially inspired by this your post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am opposed to removing the USSR from the infobox so long as we insist on subdividing it and including a "co-belligerents" section. I would have no problem removing the USSR, Iraq and Vichy France and simply collapsing the remaining states into a single undivided list. But everybody seems to prefer their lists divided. And Finnish propaganda. Srnec (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I always thought Vichy France was a neutral state, and all her military incidents with the Allies were a result of non-provoked attacks by the Allied forces. I am not familiar with Iraq history, so I have no opinion about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Weinberg's World at Arms... explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's The Second World War... gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; The Routledge atlas of the Second World War (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders.; Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica)... both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source (Churchill, as quoted in Carlton's Churchill and the Soviet Union -FR), albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same. You can see more from Gilbert and Davies in the thread below. François Robere (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide an actual quote from Weinberg (page numbers etc)? Because what I see him saying is the following:

"The French government was understandably shaken and disappointed about the Soviet Union aligning herself with Germany

Also calls Soviet Union an ally of Nazi Germany on page 54.

Also calls the fall of Poland in 1939 a "joint victory" of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union (page 57)

Also spends several pages discussing the economic, intelligence and military support the Soviet Union provided to Nazi Germany in 1939 and 1940

Also states that the reason Soviet Union did not end up joining the Tripartite Pact is because Germany (not USSR) aborted the negotiations.

Also states that Soviet Union would have "preferred" to join the Tripartite Pact if Germany had agreed to it (pg 249)

Also states that the Soviet Union trying its best to join the Tripartite Pact in 1940 was a "serious offer" (pg 201)

Also states that the Soviet Union made "massive economic offers" to Nazi Germany to persuade it to let them join the Axis (ditto)

Also states that the Soviet Union agreed to commit to fight alongside Nazi Germany in any potential war with Nazi Germany.

So can you provide a quote which says that the USSR was NOT allied with Nazis Germany in 1939-1940, because everything I see in this source actually says the opposite! Volunteer Marek 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So actually it seems Weinberg calls it an alliance too!

Yes I know, now I want to see some RS saying they were part of the Axis powers, not allied with Germany, party to the axis.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Again. The argument is NOT over whether USSR was part of the Axis. It's whether the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Absolutely no one here is claiming that USSR was part of the axis. Francois Robere keeps trying to use this line as a strawman despite the fact that he's been asked to drop it since that's not what the discussion is about. Volunteer Marek

And neither France nor the UK declared war on Russia, thus is was not part of the same conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, there was no "Russia" but I'm not sure if this is relevant anyway. All that matters is whether sources call Soviet Union "allies" of Nazi Germany or not. Volunteer Marek 15:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No it's whether or not they are called Allies or co-belligerents of the axis, NAzi Germany is not the Axis, it was part of it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Weiberg, World at Arms, p. 26: "The Soviet Union alone outside the Axis accepted the disappearance of Czechoslovakia and anticipated the disappearance of other countries." I don't quite have the leisure at the moment to go through the pages you cited above. François Robere (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Soviet Union was not in the Axis. No one is saying they were. I *just* asked you to stop misrepresenting the debate in such terms, yet here you are doing it again. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Listing the USSR in the Axis column (as an ally, co-belligerent or however labelled), from 36-39 (or any period of time), based on there being a treaty between the USSR and Nazi Germany, makes no sense. If we listed countries as allies/co-belligerents/whatever based on treaties (even treaties with secret codicils), we'd be in the weird position of listing countries (like the USSR) on both sides of the conflict. For example, if the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact makes the USSR a co-belligerent or ally of Germany, then the 1939 Munich Agreement would make the UK and France a co-belligerent or ally of Germany. But listing countries on both sides like this would be nonsensical, and extremely confusing to the reader. Yes, these agreements and the complicated, changing relationships of the parties before and during the war are obviously all content that is and should be covered in the article, but the infobox is supposed to give people a quick overview and some basic facts about the topic. If the topic is "Axis powers", the USSR should not be listed anywhere in the same column as the Axis powers. The USSR should be listed on the other column, where we list the countries that were opposed to the Axis powers, and the reason for this is simple: the USSR and Germany fought on opposite sides in World War II. Duh. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is a timestamp intervall and an appropriate chart with note inside the infobox, it should not be a problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

PLEASE NOTE - Discussion is NOT about whether USSR should be listed as an Axis Power

I feel compelled to emphasize that the discussion here is NOT about whether Soviet Union should be listed as an Axis Power, because a couple users insist on falsely framing the disagreement in those terms. This is a strawman fallacy.

The discussion is whether Soviet Union should be listed as an "ally" of Nazi Germany/Axis or a "co-belligerent" for the period in 1939-1941 before Hitler broke the alliance and attacked them (multiple high quality sources for this have been provided)

The infobox has three parts (image on right):

1. "Tripartite Powers" - no one is saying USSR should go here
2. "States that adhered to the Tripartite Pact" - while the Soviet Union had agreed to join the Tripartite Pact it ended up never joining because Nazi Germany broke off the negotiations. However no one is saying USSR should go here
3. Co-belligerent states - this is what the argument is about Should USSR be included here?

Please address the issues actually raised and not SOME OTHER dispute which doesn't actually exist. Thank you. Volunteer Marek 15:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, some editors are possibly confused. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Slovakia?

Slovakia was a puppet state so it could be put in a separate category. Hawkillglu (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hawkillglu, Which category? Are you talking about the infobox? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Slovakia is already accurately described as a Tripartite Pact signatory. That they were a puppet state during the war is already described in great detail in the article. No need to introduce a more subjective term into the infobox - particularly given e.g., Hungary also having had a government imposed on it. FOARP (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact

While we're here, it probably should be mentioned in the article that the Soviet Union agreed (provisionally) to join the Tripartite Pact in November 1940. Stalin asked for a naval base on the Bosporus (and some other stuff) and Nazi Germany decided that it wasn't worth it so went with Barbarossa instead. Volunteer Marek 06:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hitler always intended to "go with Barbarossa", and never seriously considered the USSR as a member of the Tripartitie Act. In any case, whatever was agreed to "provisionally", they never jined, so the information is irrelevant here. Countries consider doing many things, what they actually do is what's important. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is actually not true and not backed by any sources. Hitler was willing to have Soviets join the Axis if they were willing to stay in Asia. Nazi Germany explicitly offered the Soviets control over Middle East and Persian Gulf. Ribbentrop, on behalf of Hitler, explicitly invited Stalin to join the Tripartite Pact. Stalin agreed but with demands for a naval base on the Bosporus. At that point Hitler changed his mind (this was as late as December 1940) and green lit Barbarossa. Volunteer Marek 14:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, both monsters had similar plans for each other, but that doesn't mean they didn't cooperate at the beginning of the war. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, But what they consider, while of lesser importance, is often notable and relevant. Hence why we have articles about treaties that have not been signed/ratified yet, etc. (And in some cases, never will be - ACTA, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Makes sense. I'd support addition this (with a reliable source, of course). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Talks that ended with naught, no deal.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean “no deal”? Fact that Stalin accepted joining the pact is surely significant. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The pact had never been signed. Negotiations failed, similarly to 1939 Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations. Do you propose to add both?

Moreover, USSR initiated triple negotiations, and it was a position of UK and France that lead to their failure. With regard to Soviet-Axis talks, initiative came from Ribbentrop, and Molotov disagreed with German proposal, which ignored Soviet interest in Balkans.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, both should be mentioned. But here we're talking about USSR agreeing to join the Tripatrite Alliance in 1940, not 1939. And I think you have it backwards - USSR was willing to join the Axis if it was given interests in the Balkans but it was the Germans who at that point ignored the Soviets. Last diplomatic note on the subject was Moscow --> Berlin, not vice versa. Volunteer Marek 14:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Not "agreeing", but "negotiating in a responce to Hitler's invitation". "Agreeing" is misleading, because it sounds like USSR agreed to join the Axis, but Hitler rejected that idea. In reality, a situation was different: Hitler and Molotov were discussing possible Soviet membership in the Axis, but Hitler's conditions didn't satisfy Stalin, and Stalin's conditions were rejected by Hitler. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

He did agree though. Volunteer Marek 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed to what?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

To join the Tripartite Pact. Volunteer Marek 16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

To claim that, you need (i) to provide the source that explicitly says so, and (ii) to demonstrate that that source represents a majority viewpoint. I tried to find that information, but 10 minute googling provided no sources (instead, I found several interesting sources saying otherwise), which demonstrates that the viewpoint you are pushing is a minority view. You either provide evidences (vide supra) or stop POV pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken you are right Hitler always intended to "go with Barbaross, and never seriously considered the USSR as a member of the Tripartitie Act.

Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, led to one of the most brutal campaigns of World War II: of the estimated 70 million people who died in World War II, over 30 million died on the Eastern Front. Although it has previously been argued that the campaign was a pre-emptive strike, in fact, Hitler had been planning a war of intervention against the USSR ever since he came to power in 1933. Using previously unseen sources, acclaimed military historian Rolf-Dieter Muller shows that Hitler and the Wehrmacht had begun to negotiate with Poland and had even considered an alliance with Japan soon after taking power. Despite the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, at the declaration of war in September 1939, military engagement with the Red Army was still a very real and imminent possibility. In this book, Muller takes us behind the scenes of the Wehrmacht High Command, providing a fascinating insight into an unknown story of World War II.

Rolf-Dieter Muller is Professor of Military History at Humboldt University, Berlin; Scientific Director of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Institute in Potsdam; and Coordinator of the 'The German Reich and the Second World War' project. He is the author of numerous publications on World War II including The Unknown Eastern Front: The Wehrmacht and Hitler's Foreign Soldiers (I.B.Tauris). https://www.amazon.com/Enemy-East-Hitlers-Secret-Invade/dp/178076829X70.54.168.41 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Volunteer Marek 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hitler always wanted to do a operation Barbarossa just like he always wanted to do a General plan ost on the polish people.70.54.168.41 (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. We actually don't know what "Hitler always wanted". What we do know is that Hitler asked Stalin to join the Tripatrite Pact, Stalin agreed, but then Hitler changed his mind. Volunteer Marek 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we actually do know what "Hitler always wanted" because he had been saying as much for decades. That was the entire point of wanting Lebensraum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet he invited Stalin to join the Axis. And Stalin agreed. And then Hitler changed his mind. Or maybe he didn't, who knows, maybe it was just stalling. Who cares? The point is that Hitler asked and Stalin agreed and there's no dispute about that. And that's a cold hard fact rather than speculation about "what Hitler always wanted" or how he wanted to get it. Anyway. Show me sources. Volunteer Marek 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Gilbert's The Second World War states that "Molotov was dubious of Soviet adherence to the Axis", and suggests that the Soviets were aware of the German preparations for invasion owing to a spy operating in Tokyo. François Robere (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is true but it doesn't change the basic facts. Pretty much any country/leader will pursue several strategies at once so as to have options and respond to events as they unfold. Hitler was preparing for a possible war with USSR just as he was asking them to join the Axis. Both things are true. In the end, while he asked them to join the Tripartite Pact and Stalin agreed, Hitler chose to go with the invasion. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

What's your source for Stalin agreeing to join? François Robere (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

let's be more precise: Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin. For further details (and to avoid cherry-picking), I looked at the sources (I believe there will be no objections to my keywords choice), and representative sources are Roberts, Gorodetsky and Watson. At least, these will be the sources any good faith Wikipedian with no preliminary knowledge of the subject would find. Of course, if someone wants to push some specific POV, they can cherry-pick a source saying that Stalin's dream was an alliance with Hitler. However, we all want to stay neutral, aren't we?

What these representative sources say? We already know that Roberts says that Stalin was shocked after fall of France, and he sent Molotov to Berlin partially to figure out Hitler's intentions. It was more a political game than a sincere desire to join the Axis.

Gorodetsky says that "it is not sufficiently stressed that rather than participating in the dismembering of the British Empire, Molotov stubbornly insisted on the Soviet short-term strategic aim of securing a buffer zone in the Baltic and in particular in the Balkans, where the Germans now posed a serious threat to Russia. The negotiations indeed broke down over Germany's declared interests in Finland, Romania and Bulgaria". That even remotely resembles Molotov's agreement to join the Axis, which Hitler refused to accept.

Watson, whose article is devoted specifically to Molotov's role as a minister of foreign affairs in 1939-, mentions his visit to Berlin in passing.

In summary, I see no proof that Stalin's agreement to join the Axis (which never happened due to Hitler's refusal) is a popular concept. However, I am ready to consider your evidences (presented in a neutral and logically correct manner).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It's in Davies' "No Simple Victory" and a few other sources. You'll have to wait for me to brave the raging pandemic and make it to my office for more specifics (that's partly why I brought it up on talk rather than just putting it in myself). Volunteer Marek 18:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you are supposed to have a remote access to all resources like OUP, Springer, Jstor etc, just ask you IT specialists. According to this, Davies is a revisionist, so it would be premature to present his viewpoint as a majority view. In general, he objects to glossing all Allies (not only USSR), and that may be correct, taking into account that the WWII history is still being written mostly from (western) winners' perspective. Therefore, it is not a surprise that some of his statements may be exaggeration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: A longer quote from Gilbert, which sits well with what you found:

As to Russia, [Hitler's Directive 18] stated, ‘all preparations for the East... will be continued’, and further directives would follow... ‘as soon as the basic operational plan of the Army has been submitted to me and approved’.

This clear indication that an invasion of Russia remained Hitler’s goal coincided with the visit to Berlin of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov... Molotov wanted to know what Russia’s part would be in the New Order of Germany, Italy and Japan, as created by the Tripartite Pact, and where matters stood in the Balkans and Roumania, with regard to Russia’s interests. Hitler had no answer, telling Molotov that they must break off their discussion...

[The next day] Molotov continued his talks with Ribbentrop, who proposed that the Soviet Union become a partner in the Tripartite Pact. Molotov was dubious of Soviet adherence to the Axis, referring to Italy’s setbacks... and telling Ribbentrop he thought that ‘the Germans were assuming that the war against England has already been won’... [Some time later] British bombers came over Berlin yet again, and they had to... continue their talks in Ribbentrop’s own air-raid shelter... Rubbing salt in the wound, Molotov said that ‘he did not regret the air raid alarm’, as it had provided the occasion for an ‘exhaustive’ discussion...

It was something else, however, that Molotov said to Ribbentrop... which convinced Hitler that he would only be put further and further in difficulties by Soviet ambitions if the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 were to remain the basis of German policy... Molotov went so far as to tell Ribbentrop that Russia could never entirely give up its interest in the western approaches to the Baltic: the waters of the Kattegat and Skagerrak, between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, once under Danish, but under German control since May.

François Robere (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes and none of this contradicts the fact that Stalin agreed to join the pact in November 1940. Volunteer Marek 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Davies doesn't state that the USSR joined the Axis. François Robere (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Again. USSR agreed to join the Tripartite Pact. It never did join it because Hitler changed his mind. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Repeating the same argument without providing evidences is by no means helpful. You just demonstrate that you have no arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not exactly what he's saying:

...Hitler had first to examine what might be gained by prolonging the Nazi-Soviet Pact. After all, the Soviets could not have failed to notice Germany’s greatly enhanced position, and Stalin might be persuaded to make some interesting concessions... To this end, Molotov was invited to Berlin in November 1940. He was peculiarly unforthcoming...

Two issues brought negotiations to an impasse. One was Romania, which both Germany and the USSR wished to dominate. The other concerned the conditions on which Stalin might agree to join the Tripartite Pact... Ribbentrop sent a proposal to that effect via Molotov, and in a note of 25 November Stalin provisionally agreed. The devil lay in the details. The Nazis sought to use the Tripartite Pact as an instrument for keeping Stalin out of Europe... Stalin, in contrast, sought to use it as a means of reviving historic Russian claims in the Balkans. Apart from demanding the withdrawal of all German troops from Finland, his note of 25 November envisaged not only a Russo-Bulgarian treaty, but also a Soviet naval base on the Bosporus... Neither Germany nor Italy could tolerate such a prospect. Indeed, Berlin and Rome must have woken up to the fact... that the Soviet Union, once internally stabilized, would prove no less imperialist and aggressive than its tsarist predecessor. No reply was ever sent to Stalin’s note of 25 November. Instead, on 18 December 1940, Hitler drew up Directive 21, ‘Case Barbarossa’...

The implications are obvious... Stalin’s attitudes, no less than Hitler’s, determined the shift towards German-Soviet conflict. The decision to prepare plans for ‘Case Barbarossa’ was driven by ‘the combination of Britain’s refusal to make peace and the expansionist aims of the Soviet Union’.

There's a lot more there, but these seem like the most relevant parts. François Robere (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That doesn’t actually contradict what I (and Davies) say. Also you have a lot of ellipsis in there. Volunteer Marek 07:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That is close to what Roberts says. I am not sure we need to waste our time further.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I think this discussion is off track. Nobody is saying USSR was part of the Axis. Obviously, it wasn't, and the 1940 negotiations which didn't conclude are just historical trivia. What is relevant is whether USSR was an ally or co-belligerent to the Nazi Germany (and by the extension, Axis) due to its invasion of Poland in 1939. We have a number of sources saying that they were, and not a lot of sources (zero?) arguing otherwise (particularly for the term co-belligerent, which is what is used in the current infobox, as the term ally is I think more problematic and best ignored). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a somewhat different discussion. It’s not about the info box but whether this info should be added to the article. Volunteer Marek 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed to listing the USSR in the infobox, Poland issued an ultimatum to Czechoslovakia, invaded, clashed with the defenders and then annexed a part of its territory at the same time as Nazi Germany did. This according to Piotrus' and Volunteer Marek's own definition makes Poland an Axis co-belligerent.--Catlemur (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth or tell me what "my definition" is. My "definition" is very simple. Here it is: Do sources refer to Nazi Germany and some other country as "ALLIES" or "CO-BELLIGERENT"? Yes? Then we do to. No? Then we don't. There are dozens of mainstream high quality sources which refer to USSR and Nazi Germany as "allies" (or co belligerents) in 1939-1941. There are NO sources which refer in such terms to Poland and Nazi Germany. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yep. François Robere (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Good point. Either Poland should be added to the infobox or (preferably) the USSR should be removed. I would say the same thing about European theatre of World War II, which—hilariously—lists Stalin as a "commander and leader" of both the Allies and the Axis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  TheTimesAreAChanging, The last time I checked it was a bloodless invasion that doesn't even have its own article, because it was such a non-notable event (Polish foces simply occupied and a bit of territory with no resistance met). There's the little thing about WWII in Europe starting in 1939, not 1938... Nobody ever considered 1938 events in Czechoslovakia to be a part of WWII military operations. An ultimatum followed by a bloodless annexation hardly even meets the definition of 'conflict', which is required for invoking the term co-belligerence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a lovely argument, Piotrus. I doubt the 227,399 people who lived in that territory, carved up between Poland and Germany, viewed it the same. François Robere (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, do I understand you correctly that a bloodless annexation of Czechoslovakia by Germany hardly even meets the definition of 'conflict' too?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed As plenty of nations had "confused" alliances at the start of the war. They cooperated on one invasion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The point is that whether these were "confused" or not, they DID have them so they should be included in the article. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Opposed. The actual alliance, France and the UK, welcomed the Soviet move into Poland which only took place after the German's secured total victory and the Polish government and army were in the process of fleeing the country [14] . The USSR fought against Japan and Romania during the period as well.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GizzyCatBella🍁 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I also reinforce here, the Soviet Union is appropriately present in the infobox as she was co-belligerent for a period, undoubtedly per definiton. No excuse, no whitewash has room about it.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

• Oppose. The alternative viewpoint that the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis is a minority position held by those with a Polish-centric viewpoint. The alliance did not regard the Soviet Union settling its unresolved issues in Eastern Poland/Western USSR as an act of war against the alliance. During 1939-41 the USSR also fought Japan and Romania, which were on the Axis side.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per Volunteer Marek. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is obviously an embarrassing chapter in Russian and ML history, so its understandable that they've tried to downplay it, but mainstream sources are unambiguous about the extensive collaboration between Germany and the Soviet Union prior to 1941. An agreement to partition a third state is not a simple nonaggression pact. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No serious history book that I know of has ever identified the USSR as being an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Given Hitler's attitude to communism, I don't think that should come as a surprise to anyone. Anyway, what we would need to include this would be a preponderance of serious (not some random piece in a newspaper), neutral (in this case, that would mean neither Russian nor Polish), ideally academic and other high-quality level sources (WP:BESTSOURCES) which describe this as a fact - this lacking (there have been few, if any, such sources proposed - and in any case most history books, from the school book vulgarisation up to the most respectable, do not make a case for such a distinction), such an addition would fail WP:V and probably WP:NPOV too. Attempts to argue what a co-belligerent is and is not and what would fit under a given definition are rather poor and transparent attempts at WP:SYNTH (given the failure to find grounding in WP:RS, this could potentially be interpreted as WP:POVPUSHING, but editors here seem rather experienced so I assume such behaviour would be below them) which we must ignore per WP:NOR.

Finally, a word of wisdom from WP:POVPUSH: "The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, the article is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact." - simply because it is a fact that the USSR invaded Poland and did so while Nazi Germany was doing it does not make them "co-belligerents" or allies, especially given the wider context of ideological struggles (must it be reminded, that the Nazis were staunch anti-communist?), and we must not entertain this confusion between "facts" and "neutrality". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Are you suggesting that historians in Poland, a country that has been a democracy for 30 years, where academic freedom is respected, are unable to form impartial judgements about World War II? Which countries’ historians qualify as “neutral” in your worldview? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, absolutely, USSR must be described as "co-belligerent", but only until June 1941, i.e. as described here: Co-belligerence#Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union_as_co-belligerents_in_Poland with refs: . This is for two reasons. First, the cited sources say so. Second, I do not think that any serious mainstream historians disputed the fact that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union concluded the MR pact (the secret protocols) and acted accordingly, and not only military [15]. This is simply a historical fact, not a personal view by anyone. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Just another war over infoboxes with an attempt to squeeze every possible last ounce of info into them. That's not what they're for. Soviet participation in the invasion of Poland is a very minor part, if a part at all, of understanding the Axis vs Allies dynamic of WWII. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

USSR was added by IP, with no consensus

Adding the USSR to the Axis side was added by an IP, the same IP also claimed Katyn was part of "Polish Genocide in the Soviet Union". The addition of the IP did not undergo serious discussion, was not supported by sources, and is in opposition to how other encyclopedic sources such as Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum treat the Axis powers. Other reasonable encyclopedias do not list the USSR as an ally or co-belligerent.--Astral Leap (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I am so embarrassed that this was here for two and a half years. Yikes. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It was NOT added to the "Axis side". It was listed in the "co-belligerents" section. Please stop mischaracterizing the nature of the dispute, especially since you've been asked previously.

And that's actually not where it was added. Here is a version from 2016, two years before the IP edit (which simply restored it) where the info is clearly in that section [16]. It goes farther back than that. So, Levivich, I'm sure we all appreciate your deeply felt embarrassment on the part of Wikipedia, but it might not be necessary after all. At least not in this instance. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Temporary extended confirmed protection

I asked for Temporary extended confirmed protection to prevent what appears orchestrated edit wars and trolling by new accounts and VPN-generated IPs. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur this would be useful ([17] and others). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I have a feeling that the above infobox discussion(s) is being conducted in a totally disorganized manner ("My source says X, so we should include it into the infobox" - "No, my source says Y, so we should not include your statement in the infobox", etc). In reality, this discussion should be a two-step process. First, we should achieve some consensus about general criteria of inclusion/exclusion of some information into the infobox. Second, we must apply these criteria to all items. As a first step, I propose to discuss criteria for co-belligerence. I think, keeping in mind that WWII was a large scale and global conflict, this threshold should be high, so small scale military incidents and/or the incidents that didn't lead to war declaration should not be included (otherwise a reader may be confused). Do you have any comments on that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I 100% agree that establishing criteria for infobox and specifically for this category would be useful. One issue is "allies" vs "co-belligerents" vs "client states" (or something similar). For example should we include Independent State of Croatia anywhere in there? Volunteer Marek 15:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please be more focused? Do you agree with my approach to co-belligerence criteria?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Everything turns on being a special case at some point. Even if we came up with strict criteria as to what belonged in an infobox, we could still have a local consensus that over-rode it, or chose to have specific caveats next to the text.

The best way of achieving consensus quickly and to the point is for someone to state what they think belongs in the infobox and where they want to see it in the infobox. Then we understand what is being proposed, and can marshal thoughts and arguments appropriately GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO, infoboxes are supposed to present the most essential and commonly accepted information, and special cases should be discussed in the article's body.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I think special cases can be discussed in infobox too, with notes. Right now Italy and Croatia have longer notes, but USSR, Iraq and Finland, very short ones. This all started when I simply tried to expand the USSR's note... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Paul Siebert: So Vichy France and the USSR are out because nobody declared war on them and they did not declare war, but Finland and Thailand remain? (Iraq is a weird case; I'd have to look it up.) That works for me, but the "co-belligerents" label should go. Srnec (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I agree we should define the terms for the infobox, then check if various states match them. This is indeed a good approach. However, definition of co-belligerence in Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law doesn't say anything about declaring war (it defines co-belligerents as "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not." [18]], on a side note, that source also discusses few WWII cases but not Poland of France, unfortunately). With all due respect, I'd rather use the definition from an accepted, academic source than yours, which, surely incidentally, seems almost crafted to exclude USSR since it chose not to declare the war on Poland in '39... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

just crawling through superficially all the discussion (not just this section), reacting also to Gizzy's question, Yes, the Soviet Union is correctly listed by the co-belligerents with note. The current infobox is good and accurate, the main issue was about how to expanding the note, and other possibly technical questions about it. I hope you reach consensus about it the Soviet note expansion issue, but I reiterate, current infobox structure is perfect, as well Independent State of Croatia or Vichy France is in its perfect place. Any outsider editor will be totally confused seeing this wall of text (I don't say it in a negative manner, since these important issues has to be precisely discussed), but I recommend if something is outlined for change/further addition, it should be proposed strictly in a separate section, shortly/sharply, focusing only on that matter, with the most concise and minimal verbiage possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, A quick question - maybe needs its own subsection here - why is Burma not in the infobox? It has its own section in the article under ' Bilateral agreements with the Axis Powers' and all four other countries in that section are listed as co-belligerents. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Srnec, being belligerent does not mean of necessity of declaration of war, it happened by many instances, not any entity should be excluded because of that. Anyway I don't understand just because a note would have been expanded, why this perfect infobox is speculated to be questioned/changed, seems an unnecessary waste of time (just because the Allies article it had problems, it does not mean here it was not perfect).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC))

Piotrus, no problem, open a section for it, if its akin the other listed, I will support to add (just because the list it not complete, it does not mean the structure would be bad).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC))

The actual alliance, France and the UK, welcomed the Soviet move into Poland. The Soviets only moved into Poland after the Polish military completely collapsed and the government and high command was in flight (at some border town near Romania) [19] .--Erin Vaxx (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GizzyCatBella🍁 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:GizzyCatBella], I don't find this your comment appropriate. You de facto accused that user of being a sock/SPA. Accusations of misbeaviour is a personal attack. If you see some problem with that user, discuss it in some place that is intended specifically for that purpose. And, by the way, instead of reading essays, it might be more fruitful to familiarise yourself with behavioral guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Paul Siebert, note was triggered by this Vote [20] I pointed out that this user had made few or no edits in other topic areas for transparency. It's a standard procedure now in intensely disputed areas. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Such a comment would be relevant if we !voted. There is no voting here, because Wikipedia is not democracy. Do you have any objections/comments on what that user says?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I see. No, I have no comments, just reporting, due to the recent two separate new accounts and IP blocked. This particular account has not made any other edits (a few small ones, 11 in total) before being heavily involved in this and only this topic. I believe it is worth noting so established editors get an accurate idea of the situation. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So, instead of arguing that Erin Vaxx essentially reproduced the official Soviet POV, and modern sources look at that at somewhat different angle, you preferred to resort to ad hominem arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It did not matter to me what POV and what their position is. The account is new; it reverts without waiting for consensus, hence the note. Drop it, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

... and you decided that other experienced users do not know how to use the "contribs" button? Of course, that is the first thing I did when I'd seen that new account. Yes, the views this account is pushing are somewhat obsolete, but they may be a good counter-balance to ultra-revisionist views pushed by some other users. I would be grateful if in future you tried to be more focused at contributions, not contributors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul, I haven't "decided" on anything ... I aimed to make it simpler for established editors involved here to manage this mess, as I told you already. Please drop it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am seriously disappointed. I started this section to invite others to join a work aimed to select neutral criteria for the Axis co-belligerence - and only Piotrus and VM supported that. All others continue mailing irrelevant posts about some specific country. I respectfully ask everybody to refrain from posting anything here that is not relevant to the section's topic.

I propose to discuss the following questions:

• Do we agree that the infobox should contain only uncontroversial statements, and all controversial content should be moved to the article's body?

• This article is not about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy, but about their formal military alliance. In connection to that, can we call those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis "the Axis co-belligerents"?

• Can semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents?

• What is a threshold for hostilities scale (in terms of duration and the number or troops) that warrants inclusion?

I think, the following analysis of Vichy's case by Ryan Goodman may be helpful for answering some of those questions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think more sources rather than one short (self-published?) piece by a legal scholar considering only US-Vichy relationship would be needed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This source was authored by a leading expert in the field, and it was cited by top quality sources, such as "Co-Belligerency", Yale Journal of International Law (2017). Another peer-reviewed source also cites the same SPS as follows:

"For example, the claim that congressional authorization to use force against an enemy includes authorization to use force against that enemy’s co-belligerents is based essentially on one precedent. See Ryan Goodman, Debunking the “Vichy France” Argument on Authorization to Use Force Against Co-Belligerents, JUST SECURITY (Nov. 17, 2014, 10:37 AM), http://just-security.org/17516/debunking-vichy-france-argument-authorization-force-co-belligerents/. And,in fact, the Vichy France precedent is particularly telling, as there is no indication that any lawyers were present in making the decision whether the attack on Vichy France was consistent with congressional authorization, rendering its use as evidence of legal authority particularly doubtful."

The source that is being used by top quality peer-reviewed sources deserves a very careful; attention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, "Do we agree that the infobox should contain only uncontroversial statements, and all controversial content should be moved to the article's body?". but who decides what's controversial? "This article is not about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy, but about their formal military alliance. In connection to that, can we call those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis "the Axis co-belligerents"?" When would you say Axis were created? The infobox states 1936... if we want to change the date I'd suggest a separate section for this item only. "Can semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents?" I don't see why not? "What is a threshold for hostilities scale (in terms of duration and the number or troops) that warrants inclusion?" I dn't think we (the Wikipedia editors) should define such a scale. If no reliable source does it, then we should simply stick to the simple definitions of concepts and/or reliable sources that use discussed terms. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus As usual, we decide what is controversial by analysing sources. A typical example is Vichy: per one source, for the first time it was called the Axis co-belligerent in 2005, and the conclusion about co-belligerency was made to justify modern US-military actions, and it expresses US viewpoint (because the authors were working for the US governnent), and that view was not widely cited, and it was criticized by one expert, that criticism was supported by others. That is quite sufficient to call it a controversial case, per our policy.

As I already explained, I was wrong, and it seems that the Axis is not the same as the Tripartite Pact. However, if the Axis was a loose and poorly defined formation before 1940, would it be correct to speak about "Axis co-belligerence" before all major actors joined the Tripartite pact? Did China fight against the Axis in 1937, or just against Japan? Did USSR annexed the territory of the Axis state (Romania), or just Romania? Did USSR fight against the Axis at Khasan and Khalkhin Gol, or just against Japan? And so on. The

Actually, the question of threshold is strongly linked to the question of controversy, so I realised it would be incorrect to separate them. So the question is: what is a degree of controversy that precludes inclusion in the infobox?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

commnet - @Paul Siebert: I think all of these problems is dated back from description in Allies of World War II and Axis power. Yes. "the former Axis power and Co-belligerents" in Allies article, and "Co-belligerents" in naviagtionbox of Axis power. But if you see both articles, there is no such subtitles called "Co-belligerents" except for Kingdom of Italy in Allies article. But, Italy can be categorized as "former Axis power" so it actually means "there is no such category of co-belligerent". So my suggestion is this.

• We should put a country by articles of Allies of World War II and Axis power.
• Co-belligerents is not used in both articles so we should avoid that word.
• Controversial countries should not be included until users agree to put. If we starts putting those countries, it makes matter worse not better

-- Wendylove (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wendylove - What countries are "controversial countries"? Also, why we should avoid the word "co-belligerents" if RS use that word? Quote from "Problems of Communism, Volume 39, Issue 6" page 107 - "As a co- belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of western and central Poland" [21] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I can answer you by giving my opinions of "Co-belligerents". First, "those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis" or "semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents" one. I think we shouldn't divide countries like that. After all, they were all parts of Axis or Allies. And most of countries according to those criteria are "puppet state" or "government-in-exile". And also, "co-belligerents" are not using broad in WW2 military infobox and usually show contradiction. I think we should talk about that "co-belligerent" issue in other section, because I have lots of things to tell for. -- Wendylove (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wendylove well, sorry, I disagree, but I respect your position. Can I ask you to halt changing other articles[22] until we reach some agreement here? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I will stop abput my edition on other pages until users agree. I hope we will get agreement which many can understand. Thanks for listening my views. -- Wendylove (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul,

• to judge what would be controversial, I have to know which instance we are discussing, and it is really confirmed to be controversial, maybe
• you should again specify which entity ou'd refer, the infobox e.g. does not contain any entry that would be not engaged after 1936
• the same....many users move uncertain in such fields, exatly we should know which entity you refer, and when
• formally there would not be a treshold, but again, here a general approach without knowing the exact subject will likely to fail

- about co-belligerency, I already posted above in the Vichy France section.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I deliberately avoid discussing concrete cases, because the only way to create a neutral content is to agree about some general criteria, and only after that check if each concrete case meets them. To create rules for pushing some specific case would be a totally flawed approach.

I do not want to specify anything, I am just asking what we consider the Axis (in terms of its composition and timeframe): thus, if the Axis is the military alliance, can we speak about the Axis before that alliance was signed? Thus, was a declaration of a war on Germany in September 1939 a declaration of a war on the Axis, or just on Germany? Can Japan be considered an Axis power by September, 1939? What about Romania or Hungary? And so on.

If there would be no threshold, why Vichy France was not considered a co-belligerent of the Axis until Bradley&Goldsmith claimed that in 2005 to justify some modern military actions of US? BTW, taking into account that Bradley&Goldsmith reflect a US-centric (and contested) viewpoint, it would be non-neutral to include Vichy into infobox unless evidences are provided that non-US scholarly community share that view. If no such evidences are provided, Vichy should be excluded from the infobox, and we should agree that some co-belligerency threshold does exist, at least, in WWII related literature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The infobox should not be a database of countries. It's not a table meant to exhaustively list every country and where they fit into the conflict. The infobox should summarize the key facts. It doesn't need to list, at all, all of the countries who supported or opposed in some way; just the key players. If you sat someone down to explain what the Axis powers were, and you said, "The Axis powers were the countries of...", whatever follows is what should be in the infobox. You probably wouldn't mention countries like Thailand or Iraq in that sentence. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it should be a "databse" either. I do think it should include the most important cases which are discussed in sources. Like the Soviet Union. Likewise, just because something is "controversial" does not mean we should omit it from the infobox. The very fact that something is "controversial" here means it's notable and pertinent and is something that we should let our readers know. Omitting controversy isn't actually NPOV. Is there a way to include the controversy while noting that it's "controversial"? Volunteer Marek 15:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• My opinion can be found back in Archive 8 (Sept. 2020) and in this edit. I am also in complete agreement with FOARP's comment at Talk:Tripartite Pact#Relationship between this agreement and "The Axis". In direct response to Paul Siebert's question: we should not be weighting contributions to determine inclusion, which requires an arbitrary cutoff. Srnec (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Right now my position is that IF we have a "co-belligerents" section in the infobox then the USSR most def belongs in there. I'm still mulling over the question of whether such a section should be in the infobox. Volunteer Marek 15:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul, despite I don't see other way, there may be so many unexpected whereabouts that just theoretically put delimiters will ultimately fail and the outcome will be as well debated, if we see al the set of variables, then we may easier construct a delimiter (despite in theory you have right).(KIENGIR (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

• As a first step, I propose to discuss criteria for co-belligerence. We should not be taking a formally-defined category and placing things in it ourselves, at least not in an infobox where there is little room for explanations. The only valid argument for including anything under that term is if someone can demonstrate that that term is widely used to refer to their involvement in the war in reliable sources. I would strenuously oppose including anything in the infobox that cannot be cited to multiple high-quality, mainstream sources using the term "co-belligerent" specifically. If the term is not widely used, then the infobox should not use it either. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Should Burma be added as a co-belligerent?

Per my note above, "why is Burma not in the infobox? It has its own section in the article under ' Bilateral agreements with the Axis Powers' and all four other countries in that section are listed as co-belligerents." Let's discuss this in the new section for transparency. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you all (not directed at anybody in particular) stop opening different sections to argue different spins of the same thing and instead get a single centralized discussion to resolve this obviously rather annoying issue. As to "why is Burma not in the infobox", what is required is a WP:RS which identifies it as a co-belligerent (or equivalents of that term), not WP:SYNTH - this is the only way to resolve the issue to a satisfactory level for everybody, as otherwise I have the feeling you'll get bogged down into details of what is and what is not a co-belligerent, which is a waste of everybody's time as it would fall well foul of WP:NOR... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree RandomCanadian. If you want to do something with that "co-belligerent" stuff, then you should open "co-belligerent of WW2" in military history section first, not to mention whole the country which you think as co-belligerent in each talk page.... What a waste of time exactly.... -- Wendylove (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I asked Piotrus to open a new section, since already the opened sections having deteriorated with many cross-reference and soon the whole would be hard to trace. So yes, hotch-potch should be continued in the already opened sections, but for any clear-cut proposal a new section is necessary and anything should be as concise as possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

Only if it is universally described using the term in WP:RSes. Nothing should be listed there without that. --Aquillion (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Poland

I added a section on the Polish-Hitler pact. Poland and Hitler were on friendly terms from 1933 through the end of 1938, and Poland participated in the bullying and hostilities against Lithuania and Czechoslovakia. This cooperation extended also to fascist Italy, in the Munich conference Benito Mussolini proposed the transfer of Czech lands to Poland, Hungary, and Germany.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I undid your provocative edit per WP:POINT.(also obvious POV). As a brand new account with very few edits who immediately jumped into controversy I suggest you don't do that in the future. Volunteer Marek 15:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Appears relevant and sourced, German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact, 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania, Munich Agreement are all on Wikipedia. I will start a RfC. Certainly as relevant as the USSR to the Axis.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact - accomplishing Détente to not go to war with your neighbour (see also Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact) doesn't necessarily mean 'friendly'. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Much less so, but it does make some sense to discuss foreign relations of Axis with other countries in this article. As long as the section is properly sourced and doesn't include any fringe theories like Soviet/Russian claims that Poland provoked Germany to start WWII I think such a section may --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any serious Soviet articles/books that blamed Poland of provoking WWII, although agree that fringe theorists are everywhere.

I am not sure standard non-aggression pacts should be included into this article (MRP had specific clauses and a secret protocol that made it not just a usual non-aggression pact).

Polish-Lithuanian conflicts do not make the former a German/Axis co-belligerent, just because Germany had never been at war with Lithuania.

Munich agreement is also marginally relevant, actually, one have separate annexation of Sudetes from subsequent events (dismemberment and annexation of Czechoslovakia).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Note this article covers a period starting in 1936, so any military action or political support would count as relevant for the occupation of Czechoslovakia. The article is about the Axis, not WW2.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC, inclusion of Soviet and Poland as Axis Co-belligerent states

This RfC has four questions:

1. Poland-section: Should the section on Poland be present?
2. Poland-infobox: Should Poland be designated as an Axis Co-belligerent state in the infobox?
3. USSR-section: Should the section on the USSR be present?
4. USSR-infobox: Should the USSR be designated as an Axis Co-belligerent state in the infobox?

16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Poll

• Yes to Poland-section and USSR-section, but trimming both. No to Poland-infobox and USSR-infobox. While Poland's co-bullying of Eastern European states, in cooperation with Hitler, in 1938 was significant and resulted in territorial gains for Poland, it would be inaccurate to summarize Poland's position as a Co-belligerent in the scope of the entire period. It is appropriate to have a section detailing Polish dealings with Hitler and the Axis, but a one line in the infobox is not appropriate here. The same applies to the USSR, even though the case for inclusion for the USSR is even weaker given that the dealings were more limited in time, in parallel to conflict with Japan, and of a clearly temporary nature to both sides. Other encyclopedic sources such as Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum do not list Poland nor the USSR at all - but they both do cover Finland's cooperation with the Axis.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You got "USSR-section" twice in there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• No to USSR-infobox per detailed oppose in previous section, here. No (with a hint of WP:SNOW and reminding others to not be WP:POINTY) to Poland-infobox per WP:COMMONSENSE. No comment on the others since I didn't check through that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert makes a compelling analysis of sources below. This, additionally with the fact that there are virtually only a few sources about that could support "USSR co-belligerence" The Poland proposal is, I'm quite sure, not to be taken seriously, effectively making it a very minor position (bringing WP:UNDUE into account), leads me to say that dedicated sections on either of Poland or USSR would be out-of-place. Opportunistic bullying (Poland) or taking advantage of weaker neighbours (USSR; no matter how this might offend the sensibilities of some editors) do not make them members of the Axis, and the term co-belligerence being rather rare in academic sources would make this even more out of place. A few short mentions of pre-war diplomatic events (for ex. the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), robustly sourced, remain certainly warranted. Changing to No dedicated sections on both relevant topics. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• No to inclusion of USSR or Poland in the infobox (per the point of Infobox being that it "summarizes key features of the page's subject" - Polish and Soviet interactions in activities that aligned with the Axis powers activities not being a Key part of this articles coverage of the Axis powers. Yes to sections on USSR and/or Poland interactions with the Axis on the assumption that they follow the sources on the subject and aren't making interferences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• No to the infoboxes, yes to a section on each, but I don't want to imply that either the Poland or USSR sections have to be exactly as they are and can't be edited and further improved. But yes to having a section on each. No the the infoboxes for the reasons I and others have stated above and in previous discussions on this page: basically, it's not true that either Poland or the USSR were co-belligerents of the Axis (at any point in time). Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• No infoboxes, yes body-content, per all of the above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Where are the sources and what do they say? - I have not seen any sources describing Poland as a "co-belligerent" or words to that effect. We do have sources describing the USSR as such. There is controversy about whether the USSR was effectively an ally of Germany. There is not any controversy that I am aware of about whether or not Poland was a co-belligerent of Germany because I am yet to see any reliable source saying that Poland could have been considered such. I see a lot of opinions cited above, but no sources. If you want to add a one-sentence mention of Poland's annexation of a bit of Czech territory in the general history this might be due but that's it - everything else is already there. FOARP (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is in any doubt on this, No, a poll cannot be used to overturn WP:V. We cannot hold a poll about whether the article should state something that is not supported by reliable sources. No source states that Poland was a "co-belligerent" of the Axis powers. Sources (e.g., Henry L. Roberts, 'The Diplomacy of Colonel Beck', in Gordon A. Craig and Felix Gilbert (eds.), The Diplomats 1919-1939 (Princeton, 1960), pp.603, 611; Cienciala, A. M. (1999). The Munich crisis of 1938: Plans and strategy in Warsaw in the context of the western appeasement of Germany. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 10(2-3), 57-58; GROMADA, THADDEUS V. “JOSEPH BECK IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT POLISH HISTORIOGRAPHY.” The Polish Review, vol. 26, no. 3, 1981, pp. 65–73 - particularly the review of criticisms of Beck on p. 68-70) are clear that whilst Poland claimed Teschen, they did not co-operate with Germany to get it, nor did they want the Germans to occupy Czechoslovakia. If they sought arrangements with anyone, it was the Hungarians/Romanians (before they were Axis members). Poland's 1934 non-aggression pact with Germany contained no secret protocols - it was exactly what it said it was. FOARP (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, No, Yes, No. Same as the other responders, I think the infobox is not the place for this stuff, but the article body is fine. In all cases, the infobox is for straightforward, uncomplicated facts. Anything that's really complicated should be restricted to prose in the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• *No to the infoboxes, yes to a section on each. But robustly sourced. The Banner talk 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)The USSR was not so backwards as many thought and could see the trouble with Germany coming from a loooooooong distance. Creating a buffer zone and training troops in actual combat was in the military view a good safety measure but was politically "not so popular" (deliberate understatement. The Banner talk 18:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• No to both infobox inclusions, yes to having content about the various antebellum agreements that both Poland and the USSR had with Germany, but not as presented in the diffs. These sections should have headings that make it clear these two countries were not Axis powers, and the actual content of both should be agreed upon beforehand to avoid any disruption to the article. - wolf 21:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• No, No, Yes, Yes. Some info from "Poland" section might be included somewhere, but this does not justify making such section. Key info: "On 31st March 1939 Poland received guarantees from Britain and France, and on 28th April 1939 Hitler repudiated the pact with Poland". Same with Poland in the infobox. The story with USSR was very different. Here Hitler and Stalin concluded the famous pact of aggression, and most important, acted according to their pact by attacking very same Poland together. This is simply a historical fact. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And which reliable source can you cite which supports this status of USSR as co-belligerent in the wider context, besides what I hope is not just your own WP:SYNTH? Again, see the diff on my reasoning above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is described with references in Co-belligerence#Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union_as_co-belligerents_in_Poland with refs: Yes, that co-belligerence lasted only until June 1941, but it was a key factor for decision by Hitler to attack Poland. More sources? Well, I do not think that any serious mainstream historians disputed the fact that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union concluded the MR pact (the secret protocols) and acted accordingly, and not only military [23]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. No. Yes. Yes. A section on Poland, if properly sourced, is helpful. The section on USSR has existed for years and nobody ever disputed it's relevance. As for the infobox, sources have been presented that clearly describe USSR as a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany, so there's that. But no such sources have been presented for Poland (probably b/c Poland never engaged in military operations on the German side, unlike USSR). Anyway, since no sources are present for Poland being co-belligerent, inclusion of Poland in the infobox would be wrong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to the sections but they should be improved nonetheless. Yes to the USSR-infobox with a footnote that the Soviet Union was co-belligerent only until the Operation Barbarossa started. There were joint military meetings and some coordinated operations by Wehrmacht and Red Army in the eastern Poland. That's enough for inclusion. No to the Poland-infobox. Polish policies in the 1930s were certainly opportunistic but hyenism in neighbourly relations doesn't make Poland a co-belligerent state.--Darwinek (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sort of? No. Yes. Yes (1939). The Soviet Union and Germany jointly planned and executed the invasion and partition of Poland in 1939. They were clearly co-belligerents in 1939. This is supported by scholarly sources and the infobox should note that. We should not rely on popular histories that sweep the complexities of the period under the rug in favour of the simple wartime claim of "France, UK, USSR and USA vs Germany, Italy and Japan". Regarding a section on Poland, I'm worried that its going to immediately fall into WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Would prefer to instead expand the existing history section to provide more detail about the division of Czechoslovakia. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• No, No, Yes, Yes This discussion is like voting on a QAnon theory. Poland was not more co-belligerent than the United Kingdom and France, with their appeasement policy and giving all the countries around to Hitler, only to save peace for themselves. Since its victory in 1920, Poland was preparing itself for the next war against the Soviet Union, and since at least 1935 for a war against Nazi Germany - assuming, that these wars are inevitable. They only didn't know which of them will attack first, and certainly, Poles didn't know that they will attack together. Matrek (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Matrek (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

• Comment : Can we have a SNOW close on question number two? Clearly, that one (which, as I pointed out, is a bit on the POINTY side) is not going to pass as no editor amongst all the above (myself included) has !voted yes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I hate polls, because, in this context, they are against our policy. Instead, I decided to check what a random Wikipedian without any preliminary knowledge of a subject would have learned from sources if they started to search for the answer to this poll's question in Google Scholar. My presumption is that if we put Soviet or Polish flag to the infobox in "Co-belligerent" section, that implies that at least one source clearly says that USSR was the "Axis co-belligerent", AND this opinion represents majority view.

"USSR "axis co-belligerent""7 obscure sources, which are irrelevant to the topic

"Finland "Axis co-belligerent"" hmmm...

Well, just ""Axis co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of the Axis"" not impressive. It looks like the concept of the Axis co-belligerence is not popular in scholarly literature at all.

Ok, although I assume I know virtually nothing about WWII, I still know Finland was a German co-belligerent. Let's check:

"Finland AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" 29 results; most sources clearly describe Finland as Germany's co-belligerent. If we consider Finland as a "positive control", it demonstrates this search procedure works.

Now let's try a "negative control". "Vichy AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" yields 2 irrelevant sources. I checked Bradley&Goldsmith, and I found that that source does not call Vichy "the Axis co-belligerent". The exact wording is " had a nexus to the named enemy". That is, by and large, a confirmation that the idea about Vichy's co-belligerency was proposed by these two authors, and it is not popular.

Now, let's try USSR. "(Soviet OR USSR) AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" yields 29 results, but, the first article (by Gheorghe) is about Romanian co-belligerence, several other sources are about ... Finland co-belligerence, and one source (Blobaum, no citations) is about USSR's co-belligerence.

My conclusions:

• The very term "Axis co-belligerent" is virtually non-existing in literature. Such a generalisation is simply not found in sources.

• The information about the countries that are known to be Germany's co-belligerents can be easily found during a neutral search. Moreover, when I was looking for an information about USSR's co-belligerency, I found information about Finland and Romania despite the fact that that was not my goal.

• The information about the countries that are generally not considered co-belligerents (Vichy) cannot be found using the same approach. That confirms that that approach is correct.

• I even didn't try Poland, because it would be obvious that that information cannot be found (except probably veeery obscure sources).

• The situation with USSR is close to that of Poland: I am sure it is possible to find a source saying that USSR was the Germany's co-belligerent, but the amount of efforts needed for that would be a clear demonstration that the results of that work by no means reflect a commonly accepted/majority viewpoint (obviously, minority views should not be presented in infoboxes).

To summarise, I suggest to stop this nonsense, remove the "Axis co-belligerent" category altogether, and, probably, add Finland under category "Germany/European Axis co-belligerent" and Thailand to "Japan's co-belligerent".

It is quite likely my search procedure is far from ideal, but the most important thing here is that I used the same approach for each country. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Mostly agree with this, except to say that characterising Finland as a "co-belligerent" is basically the POV of Finland's wartime government and a minoirty of modern-day Finnish historians (Finland has largely discarded the "driftwood" theory). There is plenty of opinion that characterises them simply as an Axis member/German ally. Membership of the Axis is a contested concept, with people in a number of countries trying to characterise their governments of the era as not having been in the Axis for various reasons that should not necessarily be taken at face value. FOARP (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, No, Yes, Yes. 1) Poland interacted with the Axis for several years, and it can’t hurt the reader to summarize that history. However, 2) Poland did not fight alongside the Axis after 1 September 1939 (!), or even before. 3) The extensive Soviet-Axis (primarily German, but Italian too) rapprochement between August 1939 and June 1941 has to be mentioned, no question. Finally, 4) Soviet participation crossed the threshold of co-belligerence, with joint invasions, co-ordinated annexations, victory parades, intelligence sharing and more. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

According to which sources? Your !vote reads a lot like WP:SYNTH. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I would point out these sources, as well as the definition of “co-belligerent” provided by the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law: "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not". - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What does it mean "Poland interacted with the Axis" - use to have diplomatic relations with axis powers? I think all European countries had. Did Poland ever conspire with Hitler like the Soviet Union? No. -Matrek (talk)

• Yes. No. Yes. Yes – on grounds documented and argued previously. While there can be elements of subjectivity in approaching such judgments, the preponderance of evidence, I believe, supports my conclusions. Poland was not motivated in its Cieszyn Silesia action by a desire to collaborate with Germany, but by a felt need to redress what Poland saw as a 1919–20 Czech assault on Poland, which had been fighting for its life; whereas the USSR is generally seen as having been a cobelligerent of Germany – each of them harboring a declared intent to hegemonize Europe and eventually the world – in their joint, coordinated September 1939 invasion of Poland. Nihil novi (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, Yes, No, No. The case for inclusion of Poland is strong. Poland signed the first alliance with Hitler in 1934. It then spent most of the 30s bullying its neighbors and collecting scraps of territory allocated to it by Hitler. It bullied Lithuanian alongside Hitler in 1938. It co-operated with Hitler in Czechslovakia, in the Munich conference it was on the side of the Axis overall together with Italy [24]. The allies considered Poland to be in league with Hitler.[25][26]. The case for Soviet inclusion is much smaller. The Soviet agreement was limited to Hitler's previous friend, Poland, which was a long-standing enemy of Russia and that occupied Western Ukraine and Western Belarus (Affirmed by the alliance to belong to the USSR, not Poland). Poland was swiftly overrun by the German forces, and by September 10 was in general retreat with the government in flight. On 17 September, Poland's defeat was manifest and the Germans had already crossed the Vistula, area promised to the USSR, and were racing towards the Bug River. At this late date the USSR decided to enter Poland, so that it would received its Western Ukraine and Belarus territories. The allies welcomed Solviet forces entering Poland as this stopped the Nazi advance east, Churchill himself saying on 1 October 1939 that: "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."[27] In addition to all this, the USSR was engaged in combat with Japan, an Axis power, and its puppets in September 1939. The USSR entering Poland was a mere footnote, an end to a Polish occupation that began in 1920. Polish-Nazi relations between 1934-38 were significant, and the Polish role in World War II was merely limited to being a line in the sand drawn by the Western Powers. The Polish army was swiftly defeated at a very small cost to the Nazis. The allies chose to declare war over Poland not because of any Polish virtue, Poland was seen by the allies as in league with Hitler up until 1939, but because of Hitler breaking promises (Austria, the post-Munich March 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia) and Poland being one state too far. The contribution of the USSR to the alliance was overwhelming, tens of millions of dead (World War II casualties of the Soviet Union), and most of the war in Europe against Hitler was prosecuted by the USSR.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Pact of non agression" as aa "alliance with Hitler"? What kind of nonsens is this? The USSR conspired with 3rd Reich to devide the entire Eastern Europe between them, not just Poland. -Matrek (talk)

• No or Likely (but calls for improvements) No (this should not be even debated) Yes and Yes (per my prior comments) - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• No to all, very briefly describe Polish and Soviet relations with Nazis but not in current/proposed form. This Russian-Polish bickering has now gone way over the top here. Ask yourself the basic question, do other sources covering the Axis Powers as a topic showcase Poland or the Soviet Union as being associated with the Axis? The answer is overwhelmingly no. You can find a source supporting nearly any position on World War II, but the vast majority of sources covering the Axis as a topic do not cover the Soviet Union or Poland as Axis-cooperators (they do cover Axis aggression against them) at all, or if they do they do so briefly. I came here after [seeing this call to arms on the Polish Wikipedia, and in my mind peace in the answer, not fighting over history painting each other as bogeymen.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. No. Yes. Yes, 1. Poland obviously deserve a section, 2. per Biruitorul 3. Obviously deserve also a section per weight 4. Sure, since for a time it was when more Axis powers attacked Poland.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
• Yes to sections on both, no to info boxes on both.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Obvious no to including Poland, obvious yes to including USSR. I also need to point out that an RfC cannot be used to completely ignore facts and sources. Poland never fought alongside the Axis powers; Poland was invaded by Germany and the USSR, operating in unison. That is the very definition of "co-belligerent". Again, this is not really an RfC matter where a "vote" can be pushed for revisionist purposes. Jeppiz (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. No. Yes. No.. A Polish section is absurd and even more misleading than the USSR in the infobox. Srnec (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. No. Yes. Yes. - the proposal for a Polish section appears to be a bit of WP:POINTy Putinite whataboutism (in the sense that this is a propaganda line that's been pushed by Putin recently, see 6th paragraph here for example). For USSR, "co-belligerents" makes more sense for Wikipedia even if most sources use the term "ally". Agree with User:KENGIR somewhere above that the present infobox is fine. Volunteer Marek 00:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC) (added sig later)
• No to infobox, Maybe to sections - The evidence presented thus far suggests that overwhelmingly, academic literature does not describe the USSR or Poland as Axis powers, and should not be listed as such in the infobox. Co-belligerence is not equivalent to membership in the Axis powers unless sources say so. This article can include information in its body about the Axis powers' relations with the USSR, Poland, etc; it's not immediately apparent what degree of depth is appropriate, and should be determined by further editing and not by an RfC at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The proposal isn't to describe either as an Axis power. No one is proposing that. The proposal is to describe one or the other or both as "co-belligerents". For the Soviet Union, this is supported by sources, as you acknowledge. So I'm not sure if I understand your comment. Volunteer Marek 03:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm largely swayed by Paul Siebert's argument so far, that based on the level with which it is used in the literature, at the infobox level co-belligerence is a valid way to summarize Finland and Thailand's status at most. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, but fair enough. Volunteer Marek 04:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say even for Finland this is probably over-stating it, since the idea that Finland was only a co-belligerent is basically the POV of the Finnish wartime government and a minority of modern-day Finnish historians. For Thailand and Finland we have sources explicitly identifying them as Axis members. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to hedge a bit by saying "at most" because I didn't want to risk poison pilling the discussion by making what we decide for USSR or Poland dependent on changes to Finland, but you're likely correct that even Finland's position as "co-belligerent" isn't well-supported. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes to Poland-section and USSR-section. No to Poland-infobox and USSR-infobox - The infobox should be used to summarize instances of only major and long term collaboration/co-belligerence. Nevertheless the context collaboration/co-belligerence should be explained within the main body of the article.--Catlemur (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"The infobox should be used to summarize instances of only major and long term collaboration/co-belligerence". I agree. However, do not you think that MP pact leading to the attack by Hitler on Poland (that event started WWII!) and the coordinated attack by USSR to the same Poland two weeks later was an example of MAJOR collaboration/co-belligerence. Hence it must be in infobox.My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

How can you say "yes" to section which has no supporting references that would demonstrate why it should be on a page about Axis countries? This poll can't simply be used as a way of disapplying WP:V. FOARP (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe to sections for both, No to infobox. Per Paul Siebert's search, I don't think we can say that this accurately characterizes the weight of scholarly opinion. However, including reasonable length historical background in the article will allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusion. (t · c) buidhe 11:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. No. Yes. Yes. For reasons already stated,Eccekevin (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. No. Yes. No. Poland and USSR fought along with Germany (in Czechoslovakia and Poland, respectively), but there are not widely associated with the Axis, bu with the anti-Axis camp; listing them along countries such as Finland would confuse the regular readers.Anonimu (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• No to cramming the infobox, I'm fine with a section on Polish & Soviet activities with Axis powers. - The infobox is for summarizing key aspects (as others have pointed out), let the finer details and exceptions be explained by summarizing reliable sources in the body text of the article, not by warring over the top of the page. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• No to all and remove co-belligerant segment from the infobox per user:Paul Siebert's analysis. The sections on all cobelligerants can be removed too, because with 111K of readable prose, the articles is WP:TOOLONG.Mottezen (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, no, yes, no (that is, include in the body but not the infoboxes.) They're simply not generally described as "Axis co-belligerents" (whatever that somewhat vague term means) in the sources, so putting it in the infobox, which can't really explain it, is nonsense - things like that in infoboxes need to be extremely, unambiguously clear while also being central to the topic, none of which applies here. I would support removing the co-belligerent bit from the infobox entirely on these grounds - it's just too vague and ultimately feels like WP:OR in context, especially given the editors trying to come up with their own personal definitions for it above (if the sources don't define it in clear and unambiguous terms, we shouldn't be using it in an infobox.) However, both had agreements with the Axis powers of one sort or another and these should be explained in the appropriate part of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I have altered the order to match with what you say (question 1 and 3 are the sections), if it doesn't bother you. To be clear, "appropriate part of the article", do you think that would necessarily imply/require a separate section for each? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding Poland - the Polish-German agreement was in 1933. The treaty which formed the Axis powers was in 1935. There never was any "bilateral" agreement between Poland and Axis powers. There was the whole mess with Munich and Zaolzie but that was a general agreement and it was agreed to by Western Powers. Calling that a "bilateral treaty" with the Axis is like saying that Britain and France signed a bilateral treaty with the axis because they agreed to Munich. Volunteer Marek 18:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The argument to include a separate section on Poland is an argument to include a section on every country in the world simply because "it's interesting". There's nothing that isn't amazingly WP:UNDUE that isn't already said elsewhere in the article already. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rather no, obviously no, yes, rather no. Poland was not a co-belligerent for obvious reason: it didn't participate in war on Axis side. It only took an opportunity to force Czechoslovakia to cede part of territory, but it was proceeded in peaceful way, maybe apart from some incidents. The Germans didn't fight in Czechoslovakia either. A political support in part of German goals is other thing - but what to say about Western countries, which agreed to give a part of a sovereign state then?.. So Poland didn't fight along with Axis, and such infobox is misleading readers, to say least. A section explaining Polish relations could stay, but it is not mandatory. As for Soviet Union, it obviously was Axis co-belligerent in 1939 - it had an agreement with Germany to invade Poland, and invaded it with force, helping German armies. In Finland, Baltic states and Besarabia, the USSR forced own interests only, but in Poland it was also obliged to help the Germans, so it was a co-belligerent. However, placing it in the infobox would be too much simplification, without explaining the context, limited to 1939. Pibwl ←« 12:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes to Poland-section and USSR-section, but trimming both. No to Poland-infobox and USSR-infobox. It would be inappropriate to simply list them in the infobox when the article lead clearly defines the Axis as "a military coalition that fought in World War II against the Allies", and links in the infobox are to the Tripartite Pact. That said, it would not be wrong to have some lesser detail on nations not "in" the Axis relating to the Axis goals or success. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• no. no. no. no We should follow general terms, which Axis is described as ""a military coalition that fought in World War II against the Allies". If we start to focus on other minor facts, it would disturb and disrupt what original article tells for -- Wendylove (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Call to arms on Polish Wikipedia

Over at the Polish Wikipedia, User:Hanyangprofessor2 which is a User:Piotrus alternative account, posted this call to arms. Piotrus is blaming "Russian editors" for comparing the USSR to Poland and "starting a vote" at en: Talk: Axis_powers # Poll. Piotrus is calling Polish editors to vote and saying that if English is a problem they should: "the Google translation from Polish to English works very well, right button in Chrome and you can translate the whole discussion, and it is also easy to translate your comment / voice from Polish to English and paste there". I posted a note at AN.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I take a very dim view of the WP:CANVASS issues that this discussion now suffers from, per the above. I have WP:ECP'd this article talk page for one month, which is an extreme measure, to be sure. This is an WP:ACDS action which I will be recording in the log momentarily. El_C 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: that was a bad idea from Piotrus, but looking at the above discussion I see that all but three accounts in the above discussion are en-wiki EE regulars and pretty much none of them Polish. I don't think any of them have been canvassed. The three accounts which are either brand new or low edit count are the OP, Astral Leap who started this WP:POINTy RfC and about whom concerns have been expressed previously ([28]), Erin Vaxx, which created an account in Sept 2020, made a couple edits, then immediately jumped into this controversy when it began. These two obviously were not canvassed by Piotrus. The third account is Matrek and I guess it's possible they came here as a result of Piotrus' post on pl wiki though their comment makes a coherent and well thought out argument which means it should be taken at face value.

Oh yeah. Bob not snob too I guess. Volunteer Marek 21:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Which means that whatever canvassing happened has had essentially no impact on the outcome here. Volunteer Marek 21:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, my notice above is just that — a notice. This isn't the place to discuss this matter at length. The place to do so is at WP:AN, where the discussion remains ongoing. El_C 22:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: Piotrus has been topic-banned for one month by El_C as an AE; and Astral has been given a one-week block for edit warring with Volunteer Marek (although they're appealing on a technicality - in any case I haven't looked at the specifics, just notifying on this talk page in case anybody missed it/is not aware of the issue). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think that having WP:Canvass is fine, merely as a fair advice, but enforcing it with topic bans and blocks is damaging for WP. We must encourage, not discourage communications in the project. For example, someone inviting friends from another project to participate here is actually a good idea, assuming that they will contribute constructively. If these "friends" (whoever) will not contribute constructively and will behave badly here, then yes, block them on spot, very simple. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• My personal view is the above poll is simply a WP:POINTy attempt to get around WP:V. We simply don't have sources laying out the view of Poland espoused above as being a German ally. We do have (some) sources stating this about the USSR. But ultimately this is a page about the Axis, and we don't have any sources stating that the USSR was an Axis member. FOARP (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• And if (say) he had left a similar message on the Russian wiki about "Polish editors" fine, it would not have been canvassing. But we cannot allow the project to be highjacked by nationalism (and no I never invite friends from another project, even when I think their input might be valuable, its not as if we are a well-kept secret). Would it be OK to (say) post on Stormfront "Hey they are trying to say the nazis killed jews, just pop over and have a look"? No it would not, and this is the point, a rule has to be that, a rule. It cant be a rule only when its conviniant to me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree: it would not be appropriate to invite "friends" from Stormfront. But I hope that Polish WP is not Stormfront. As about Russian wiki, there are actually many messages out there about disputes on English WP. As you can imagine, many guys on ruwiki are not exactly "pro-Western". Under no circumstances I reported anyone involved in such cross-wiki communications to ANI. And I think that was right. BTW, they had at least two EEML-like affairs on ruwiki, and some participants were editing here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Painting this as a simple attempt to ìnvite "friends from another project" is disingenuous. Piotrus is (like VM and other regulars) certainly aware of the EE ArbCom situation, and justifying it as an attempt to bait a potential sock is no excuse. What AL did is nigh inexcusable, but doesn't change the fact that WP:CANVASS isn't exactly a secret either... Anyway, this discussion has been had at AN and there's also now a block appeal from AL that needs (IMHO) rejecting, this unfortunate parenthesis should for the time being be closed and the regular course of events hopefully resumed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This poll is moot

The entire concept of a country being "co-belligerent" with the Axis is WP:OR as ably shown by Paul Siebert, and deprecated by consensus below. See below for a thorough exposition based on Cienciala and H.L. Roberts of why the idea that Poland worked with Germany is at best WP:FRINGE. This was always a badly-formatted RFC as it connects issues that are not connected, based on a theory that is WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is still too long and has too many parts unreferenced

Per WP:LENGTH if an article has more than 80kb of readable prose it should certainly be split (and if one longer than 60kb it should "probably" be split). Using the prose-length measuring tool I see this page currently has a prose-length of 106kb.
I'm going to make the modest proposal right now that any unreferenced content should be cut so we can get this page down to a reasonable size. This is entirely justified by WP:V. I'm sure the endless fights over who gets the mark of shame in the infobox are entertaining, but it really isn't as important as the basic fact that this article is a garbage-heap in terms of referencing. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, but I disagree one removal and the shortening of the Italy section, it has weight in the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

Yes, the article is long. But no, I do not see how it can be split without damaging the article. The Banner talk 12:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What unreferenced content?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Having had a quick edit myself in the Indo-China part of the article, some of the sections which are summaries of "Main" articles are thin on referencing.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So we just port over a couple of refs from the main articles.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Whole sections of this article have no references at all, or only one. Simply porting over references from the main articles (typically "COUNTRY during WW2" articles) is questionable methodology when the immediate question for some of the countries here that are unreferenced is "why are they on this page?" and that question is not answered on the respective page. For example, there is no explanation really as to why Laos should be included here. No reference is provided for Manchukuo. Iraq is limited to a single reference to the text of Fuhrer Order, when what is really needed is a secondary source telling us that this was a German/Axis-Iraqi alliance of some sort. FOARP (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If the material is covered in the main article, and is source it is perfectly acceptable to just port over a ref. Also if it is well sourced in the main article we only need one or two sources here for convenience.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

But that material should support that country being included on this page as a member of the Axis. If it doesn't (and, e.g., for Iraq, it doesn't seem to, since the Fuhrer Order is a primary source requiring interpretation, and the page discusses the course of operations in Iraq in factual terms without providing a source saying "Iraq was an axis ally" or words to that effect). FOARP (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Does "pro-nazi"count [[29]], [[30]]?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems like we're still making an interpretation rather than having a secondary source tell us that there was an alliance of some sort. There's no doubt that Rashid was pro-Nazi, no doubt also that the Germans and Italians supported him militarily, no doubt also that he fought against the British, but does this add up to alliance? I'd be much more comfortable if there were a reference saying so. To take another example, the Shah of Iran has been described as being pro-German, and he also fought the allies, is this sufficient for us to say that Iran was an Axis country without having a reference saying that or words to that effect?

It seems to me that this area of history has been the subject of enough writing that it should be very simple to find references explicitly saying who was and was not an Axis ally, and if these references can't be found then we should hesitate about saying so. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem hung up on the word ally. They received military aid from the Axis, they fought against the British during ww2.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What I'm hung up on is sourcing, particularly on a page which is about an alliance. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well then it should only be about those nations who were part of the Axis or allied to the Axis and not just one nation, should it not?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that is it means excluding countries which the sources are pretty explicit about being part of the Axis such as Finland, which never signed any official alliance with Germany beyond the Anti-Comintern Pact. The Axis does not appear to be a formal alliance with a clear list of signatories. Even the Tripartite Pact was never formally invoked and never really functioned beyond a few technical committees. FOARP (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So? either we go with exactly what RS say or we allow some leeway. But this page is Azis powers, not (for example) Nazi Germany (which has its own international relations page). I agree we should not get hung up on the word ally.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Co-belligerent

This article is not about WW2, it is not about "the Axis in WW2". Thus I am unsure if Co-beligerant should even be here. After all WW2 was not the only war fought by an Azis power in this period.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Co-belligerents should only be included here if there is a reference saying that they were an ally of Germany/Italy/Japan/the Axis. For example, Iran did fight against the UK and the USSR, but I have not seen a single reference referring to them as having been a German/Japanese/Italian/Axis (or whatever) ally and as such I would not support them being included unless a reference can be provided to support inclusion. On the other hand Finland's wartime government claimed to be simply a co-belligerent of Germany, but this should not be decisive since there is plentiful evidence in reliable sources stating that Finland was basically a German ally and part of the axis. FOARP (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So it has to say, ally, not aided, sided with, helped, accomplice, just ally? This is why this is a bad idea to have this. What is a "co-beligerant"? This article covers at least 3 years without a significant war in Europe. It would be best (to my mind and to avoid further conflict) to just remove this from the info box and discuss details in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"This article covers at least 3 years without a significant war in Europe." - which period is that? If we're talking about pre-1936 then I think you may be correct. I don't think the sub-headings in the infobox are particularly helpful as it leads to daisy-chain arguments (e.g., "Finland was self-described during the war as a co-belligerent and is included as part of the Axis, therefore any country that was arguably a co-belligerent of the Axis was also part of the Axis").

The reason to include Finland (and indeed any other country) is not that it was a co-belligerent, it's that reliable sources describe it as having been a German ally and/or axis member regardless of the claims of its wartime government. FOARP (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And again, does it have to only be ally, or can it also be aided, sided with, helped, accomplice (or even pro)? By not having this heading, and only including actual signed up members we remove the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

But what is an "actual, signed up member"? If this article is restricted to Tripartite Pact signatories then it becomes simply a duplicate of the Tripartite Pact article. A review of the sources shows the Axis is defined more widely than the Tripartite Pact. Other alliances of different degrees of formality were involved. Bottom line is if anyone wants to include a country here they need to provide sources supporting that inclusion and they need to be pretty explicit about that country having been an ally of the Axis. FOARP (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And then we have arguments over what is and is not acceptable criteria. But yes this does begin to look all a bit forky, an article created just to say X or Y was part of the axis.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if that wasn't the original intent, and even if (which I believe is possible) the article can be edited so as not to be a WP:POVFORK, "an article ... just to say X or Y was part of the axis" is what it seems to be right now. This is why we have these repeated, facile arguments about the infobox which are driven entirely by WP:POINTy behaviour.

This article should be GA at least, but it isn't and stands no chance of becoming so. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

maybe this then [[31]] should be our model, we only include nations that "joined the Axis" rather than just some connection with it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Actually, by using a loose definition of the term "the Axis" (which is not just a Tripartite Pact) and trying to introduce a strict term "Axis co-belligerent" we are making a big mistake. In reality, that division is artificial. Thus, some sources (vide supra) describe Romania as "Germany co-belligerent", despite the fact that it was the Axis member. And that is not a mistake: actually, it is possible to be the Axis member without being Axis co-belligerent (Bulgaria was not at war with the USSR, as far as I know). I agree it would be better to get rid of "co-belligerent" section at all. With regard to Finland, it never formally joined the Tripartite Pact, but, keeping in mind that the term "The Axis" is more loose, I see no reason why cannot it be included as the Axis power (with a reservation that it never signed the Tripartite Pact). That is what EB says:

"During the war a number of other countries joined the Axis, induced by coercion or promises of territory or protection by the Axis powers. They included Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia (after Czechoslovakia had divided in 1939) in November 1940, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in March 1941, and, after the wartime breakup of Yugoslavia, Croatia (June 1941). Finland, although it did not formally join the Tripartite Pact, cooperated with the Axis because of its opposition to the Soviet Union (to which Finland had been forced to cede territory in 1940) and entered the war in 1941."

I think if we use a loose definition of the Axis, a division onto the Axis members and co-belligerents should be removed and replaced to "Other states".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy to only include countries which we actually have sources saying were members of the Axis here. The title of the article is "Axis powers" (setting aside what a "power" is ....) this means it should be about Axis countries. The following have no source explicitly identifying them as part of the Axis:

• Iraq
• Wang Jingwei regime
• Denmark
• Manchuria (though I note this source at least identifies them as part of the Axis)
• Spain
• Ba Maw regime
• USSR
• Vichy
• Albania
• Serbia
• Greece
• Cambodia
• Mengjiang
• Laos
• Vietnam
• Philippines

The various Japanese puppet states could fairly be covered in a sub-section under the Japan section on the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere. This would, anyway, bring the focus back to where it belongs and shorten the article to the length where it needs to be (it needs to lose at least 20kb to meet WP:LENGTH). FOARP (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I would rather (to avoid future conflict) just avoid any inclusion of anyone not actually described as a member of the axis powers by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of co-belligerents altogether — Slater's right, "co-belligerent" only makes sense in the context of a specific episode of belligerence: as in, in an attack, or a particular war. This article isn't limited to the Axis in WWII, some countries' status changes over time, and that seems to be the root of the dispute over whether countries should be listed as co-belligerents. The idea of "Axis co-belligerents" requires more nuance than is possible (or desirable) in an infobox. Listing almost any country as a "co-belligerent" in the infobox gives the reader an incomplete picture at best (at worst, a completely false picture). So, the best move is to just list the Axis powers in the infobox, and not list co-belligerents at all. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is valid point. However, USSR and Nazi Germany, for example, did attack Poland from two sides, after having a preliminary written agreement about it. Hence they indeed were true co-belligerents based on "a specific episode of belligerence: as in, in an attack, or a particular war". Would not you agree? Speaking logically, any country that was a co-belligerent with Axis countries, during any period of time should be included on this page My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree about the infobox, but I do not agree that "this article isn't limited to the Axis in WWII". Specifically, I do not think there is a any clear definition of the Axis not in terms of World War II. It is true that the term originates in the years just before the war, but war trumps diplomacy. "Axis", like "Entente", "Central Powers" and "Allies", refers to one side in a global conflict—and in all cases was a product of the war itself as much as of pre-war diplomacy. The reason we should remove the co-belligerents (except Finland, which was fully Axis) is that it is very likely to mislead the casual reader and the infobox is for just such a reader. Srnec (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of co-belligerents- It was "controversial" to put co-belligerence since exist of this term. By its meaning co-belligerence is the state which related to the war which has common enemy. By its vague meaning, I think we shouldn't use the word co-belligerence here. Other states what User:FOARP mention is puppet-states and they have participated various activities with Axis power (except for Soviets which is controversial right now), so I don't think we should delete them for now. -- Wendylove (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not proposing deleting them, just grouping them under the heading of their "boss" country if there is no source identifying them as a member of Axis. Croatia, Slovakia, and Hungary (governed by a German-installed government after 1944) are described in multiple sources as Axis members, signed the Tripartite pact, so they would remain separate (but noted as governed as puppet states). FOARP (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any major change on the outline and categorization of the infobox. Professionally and well set modifications possible. I still stand not any general guide may decide inclusion in this complex area, but all entities should be judged and discussed one-by-one.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC))
• SUPPORT removal of co-belligerents from the infobox. The title of this article is "Axis powers". Naturally you'd expect the infobox to list countries that we know are Axis power because reliable sources call them that. Is a co-belligerent necessarily a member of the Axis? This is dubious. Finland claimed to be a co-belligerent during the war but plenty of reliable sources simply identify them as a member of the Axis. In the case of Finland, the idea that they were "co-belligerents" is generally just considered to be wartime spin, not undoubted fact. We have sources identifying the USSR as a "German Ally" during the M-R pact, but again this is not the same as sources identifying the USSR explicitly as a member of the Axis. The same goes for puppet states that are not explicitly described as Axis-members in reliable sources, though these may be grouped under their "boss" country title - puppet states that are explicitly described as Axis members in reliable sources should remain in the infobox. The M-R pact can be covered in the article under bilateral relations, a section on Poland is just trolling TBH. FOARP (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly - for two reasons. First, the page in current state is actually very good and informative. Being only slightly familiar with this subject, I found many things I did not know about on this page, in particular all these complex connections between different countries during WWII. Removing more than 50% of content from this page (as suggested) will dramatically degrade it. Secondly, some countries from the list above do belong to this page. There is no any doubts. For example, USSR and Nazi Germany did both attack Poland, after having a preliminary written agreement about it. Hence they indeed were true co-belligerents based on "a specific episode of belligerence: such as an actual attack and an actual war". Thinking logically, any country that was a co-belligerent with Axis countries, during any period of time should be included on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes - Including states which fought against the Allies but for which there is no reference at all saying they were in the Axis and which are not presently included on this page (e.g., Iran)? Regarding length, the corresponding article on the Allies is half the length, covers more countries, and is in every way better. FOARP (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am saying we must include all countries that collaborated military (or had significant political agreements/pacts) with Axis countries on this page if we want this page to be interesting and informative. And especially such pacts and coordinated military actions (with Nazi Germany) which started the entire WWII. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Discussing them on this page in terms of bi-lateral relations with Axis countries, yes, but in the infobox in what is supposed to be a list of Axis countries? I would say that needs a source saying explicitly that they were in the Axis. FOARP (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• We are not talking about "bi-lateral relations". Everyone had such relations with everyone. We are talking about a de facto actual military alliance with Axis countries. But, yes, these are not Axis countries, and therefore they are NOT included in in the infobox as Axis countries, but separately. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• How does it make sense in the infobox for a page about the Axis, to list countries that weren't in the Axis? FOARP (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't think anyone is suggesting removing 50% of the content of the page. This relates solely to the infobox and to if we should use the specific term "co-belligerent"; at least based on most of the opinions I'm seeing here, the more in-depth details on those Axis-adjacent nations and their involvement would remain in the article body without much change. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of co-belligerents- Co-belligerence has a rather strict legal meaning, it's not for Wikipedian editors to judge. Do note that the 1947 Peace Treaty with Finland defines the country as "an ally of Hitlerite Germany", not a co-belligerent.Anonimu (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree on Finland. It is not only the peace agreement that says this, either, plenty of historians say the same. The entire idea that being simply a "co-belligerent" of the Axis was a thing is basically the POV of Finland's wartime government. FOARP (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• 100% agree on Finland. It is the whole reason there is a co-belligerents section in the infobox that attracts countries that don't belong. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• No. As this page correctly tells, "Although Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact, it fought against the Soviet Union alongside Germany in the 1941-44 Continuation War", and so on. See the photo of Mannerheim with Hitler. Finland absolutely must remain on the page, just as Vichy France. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this an article about the Tripartite Pact? No. So why is membership of the (never actually invoked, barely ever operated) Tripartite Pact decisive as to whether a country should or should not be described as an Axis member? What is decisive is reliable sources describing Finland as being an Axis member, which means we should keep them there as an Axis member. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

See, you misunderstood what they've said. Finland and Vichy France, Iraq, Thailand is not a co-belligerent of Axis power. They are Axis power themselves. The countries that belong to "co-belligerent" section should be deleted, and we are going to put it on Axis itself. Like "Tripartite Pact" and "Other countries" -- Wendylove (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say any country for which sourcing can be found describing them as a member of the Axis should be kept. For Finland and Thailand we have this so they should stay in a list of Axis countries. For Vichy and Iraq we don't have this. In fact it is unclear to me why Vichy and Iraq should be included (and Iran not included) in a list of Axis countries, since we don't have any sources saying they were members of the Axis (and AFAIK we also don't have sources saying they were co-belligerents). FOARP (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral to removal/keeping the term "co-belligerents", but retain Finland, Thailand, Iraq in the infobox- No matter what term is decided on to describe, they cooperated military and declared/waged war in cooperation/alliance with the Axis powers and should be shown in the infobox in some capacity... Neutral on inclusion or not of the USSR --Havsjö (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy to include both Finland and Thailand as simply Axis members. We can have a footnote for Finland saying it is described by some (not all) as being a co-belligerent. Thailand would need a source saying they were a co-belligerent even for that. Iraq, on the other hand, we both have no sources describing as a "co-belligerent" AND no sources saying they were an Axis-member - so why describe them as being either? FOARP (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

According to a 2008 Helsingin Sanomat poll with 28 history professors (link), 16 said that Finland was allied with Germany, 6 disagreed and 6 didn't want to take a clear stance. However, the fact that it wasn't a de jure alliance made a difference with things like that the United States never declared war on Finland despite being de facto allied with Germany. So it should stay but the relationship should covered with more detail. --Pudeo (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Though it might be important to consider that "Axis powers" & "allied with Nazi Germany" are not necessarily the same thing. --Pudeo (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Pudeo, it's very useful input. The Helsingin Sanomat poll is interesting as it provides statistical proof for what has been said in e.g., the Tallgren reference (that even in Finland, the narrative that Finland was only a co-belligerent is controversial/not widely believed by modern historians). However, we have other sources that describe Finland as an Axis member (for example 1 2 3, 4) and it appears to be a widely-held view outside Finland. The Finns are not the only people who have taken a view on this, nor are Finnish source the only ones that should be referred to. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of co-belligerents from the infobox unless significant mainstream sources can be found using the term; the term has very specific meaning, so it's WP:OR for us to apply it ourselves unless we have sources doing so. However, I don't support removing the related material from the article body - we should avoid the term "co-belligerents" unless directly supported by the sources, but the body of the article can discuss the full depth of involvement other nations had in the Axis war effort while following the sources more closely. It's only the infobox, which has trouble reflecting the full nuance of the sources, that is the problem. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think we've got a pretty good, stable rough consensus for just taking the "co-belligerent" classification out of the infobox and leaving in the countries that we have references for being part of the Axis (Finland and Thailand). This is especially based on the arguments around WP:OR and WP:V. This proposal is better than that in the troll-poll above about Poland, for which almost no policy is cited. My proposal is a simple division into "Founding members" (Germany, Italy, Japan) and "Other Axis powers" (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Finland, Thailand) with footnotes for why each is included (e.g., 1) "Tripartite pact members", 2) "Did not sign Tripartite pact, generally considered Axis member, see [cites]"). Unless there's any objection beyond what's discussed above I intend to do that. FOARP (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  FOARP, I support your proposal as it sensible and policy based. It will also reduce flames around this page.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is reasonable, and it seems to reflect consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with it. I changed the wording away from "founding members", since I'm not entirely sure what that means. When did these three "found" the Axis? It can't be 1936 or where are the other Anti-Comintern powers. Also, the current treatment of Croatia (full name) now looks especially odd. Srnec (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy with any wording that doesn't imply that the Tripartite Pact and the Axis are synonymous - the Axis existed before the Tripartite pact, and had members who didn't sign the Tripartite pact. I've gone with "original Axis members" but anything similar will do. Agree the name of Croatia is odd, since no other country gets the "full name" treatment and am happy to change. Some countries have been marked as being included in the Axis as "As tripartite pact signatories", but this is just so that people can understand why they are included there, in reality we could instead refer to another common listing of Axis countries (e.g., the Bowman reference or any other). FOARP (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what makes the Tripartite powers the "original" or "founding" Axis members. Was there any tripartite agreement between them prior to the Tripartite Pact? It just feels like backdating the pact to 1936 (given the date at the top of the infobox). I am not in favour of "demoting" Japan, but Germany and Italy were the two "founding"/"original" Axis powers insofar as the term was first used to describe their relationship from 1936. Srnec (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a tricky one and I don't think there's any easy answer. As discussed by e.g., the Cooke reference the Axis consisted of the Tripartite pact (TP), the Anti-Comintern Pact (ACP), Pact of Steel (PoS). Germany and Japan signed the ACP in 1936 (and by Italy in 1937 - EDIT: as an aside, Italy's entry into the agreement specified that they were to be considered an original signatory of it), PoS was signed by Italy and Germany in 1939, TP was signed by all three in 1940. Since the term "the Axis" or "the Axis powers" was being used before the TP, and since we already have a separate article on the TP, and since certain countries are generally considered to have been Axis members without ever signing the TP (e.g., Finland, Thailand), I don't think we can adopt a position where "the Axis" = the TP. Really "the Axis" wasn't a formal alliance but instead a loose coalition, the TP was never actually invoked and barely operated.

I suppose one solution would be simply to get rid of the distinction between DE-JP-IT and the other Axis countries and list them in a single list. Another might be to change the distinction to "Major Axis powers" and "Minor Axis powers", a quick GBooks search does show that at least the "minor Axis powers" description has some validity. Any other ideas? FOARP (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That will definitely not a solution, for the very name "The Axis" is just a short form of "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis".

In general, as far as I know, an overwhelming majority of sources agree that the Axis was composed of four category states:

• The Axis' "Big Three" (Germany, Italy, Japan);

• The independent states that joined the Axis by signing the Tripartite Agreement;
• The semi-independent states that never existed by 1937 and that formed as a result of military actions of the Axis or some its members/future members (Slovakia, Croatia, etc.)

• The states that were co-belligerents of one of the Axis members, and who were extensively participating in joint military activity after the Tripartite pact was signed (Finland, Thailand(?))

That makes the Axis intrinsically inhomogeneous, which must be reflected in the infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the Axis was not a homogenous blob. Any division of the countries needs to be something supported by sources though. I agree that DE-IT-JP should be in a grouping by themselves. I see some sources supporting a major/minor split, but I am open to doing it other ways. I am not sure that the overwhelming majority of sources do actually divide the Axis in exactly the way you've put forth (for example this article on the history of the Axis written from a global perspective does not mention these four classes - indeed it talks a lot about how vaguely defined the Axis actually is/was) but am happy to look at sources showing this.

Also worth noting that the original Axis was the "Rome-Berlin Axis". The title "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis" certainly does not appear to have been very widely used, and at present is without a source in our article. In a rough measure of how common these two titles are, I see 229 GScholar hits for "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis" and 1990 hits for "Rome-Berlin Axis". "The Axis" existed before the Tripartite Pact so it seems better not to equate the TP to being in the Axis. FOARP (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Independent State of Croatia

The page describes Croatia as a puppet state (three sources).Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC) There is however Category:Client states of Nazi Germany and Client state. Some consistency would be nice.Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Something may be founded/created as a puppet state, which after will be a client state.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC))

This, plus if the sources say "puppet state" then that's what we're calling it - we don't typically second-guess reliable sources. "Puppet state" is (according to our article) a kind of "Client state", but not all client states are puppet states if our article is to be believed. What a category is called is not decisive of anything because it is often not based on the sources. FOARP (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Poland section

There is no justification for an entire section in this article, an article about the Axis, about Poland, which was not an Axis country. This article is already far too long (it needs to be 80kb of prose tops and it's more than 100kb) and a detail analysis of Polish-German relations is clearly WP:UNDUE especially as the important points are already summarised in the sections about Germany and the M-R pact. I entirely agree with Volunteer Marek's deletion. The above poll has already been superseded by dropping "co-belligerents" as a class for policy-based reasons and is entirely moot as a result. My personal view is that it was basically trolling by trying to include Poland, a country that no reliable source describes as a German ally in the relevant period, much less an Axis member. FOARP (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes and now we have IP hopping anon users using proxies to try and edit war it into the article. Volunteer Marek 18:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I too agree with that (see my justification in discussion above). My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we also just say the poll is moot? It's become clear during the discussion that "co-belligerent" was not a useful category, still less one supported by the sources, and it's been removed as a result. The entire thesis of the poll is "if you include the USSR you have to include Poland" based on the idea that they were both "co-belligerents" but this is simply illogical - those are different cases and the sources tell us quite different things about them - and pointless now we've dropped the idea that "co-belligerents" were an important class of country. Ultimately it was just an attempt to circumvent WP:V and WP:UNDUE using a local consensus. I can see shortening this article by quite a lot (it needs to get down to ~80kb of prose at most) but in any event there's always going to be a section on the M-R pact since it was so key to the development of the Axis. In contrast Poland was only ever important to the Axis during the 1936-45 period as a target for invasion, and this is already adequately covered under war-goals. FOARP (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Every country should be discussed separately because all of them are different. For example, the MR pact was signed between Nazi Germany and USSR (not Poland), and it was USSR who attacked Poland (not the other way around). No, I do not see how this page can be reduced. One should assume that a reader does not know the subject. For example, if country X (like Hungary) collaborated with Nazi in extermination of Jews during the Holocaust, while not being a territory directly occupied by Nazi like Poland, such info should arguably remain. Even Iraq belongs here. I should say this page is in good condition (for a non-expert) and very informative. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Every country should be discussed separately" - this is an article about the Axis powers, not about "every country". There were 40+ countries in the world at the time of WW2 and I cannot take seriously a proposal to include separate sections on all of them in an article that is already far too long. Occupied Poland is discussed under the relevant section regarding occupied territories, the M-R pact is discussed under the relevant section, Germany's territorial ambitions against Poland are discussed under the section regarding their war goals. What's left, that isn't WP:UNDUE, to discuss?

Remember also that there are many other articles on Wiki where the subject matter that a minority of people seem to want to include here under a dedicated section about Poland is already covered in depth. There is no justification to include it here when it is at best peripheral/WP:UNDUE to the actual subject of the article, which is (to re-iterate) already far too long.

"I should say this page is in good condition (for a non-expert) and very informative." - this article is rated "C" and even this may be rating it too high. It should be a GA, but it can't be one as long as people insist on pointless edit-warring to put the countries they want to portray as "bad" into it. "I think it's interesting" is a classic example of an argument to avoid on Wiki. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There are reliable sources pointing to Polish-German cooperation after the creation of the Axis, see this perfectly reliable mainstream source: "Poland and Germany conspired jointly to destroy Czechoslovakia", "Poland's co-operation with Germany in the Czechoslovakian crisis became clearly defined after the tension of May 1938", "Poland and Germany committed themselves to the break-up of the Czech state and Polish territorial aims appeared to be accepted." (p. 855) "Poland's ostensible neutrality, but in fact direct commitment to Germany during the latter stages of the Czechoslovak crisis" (p. 856). Of course, the section should also point that this collaboration was rather limited in scale, and it ended by spring 1939, but this can't be just ignored.Anonimu (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing an entire section based on the views of a single author, and on the basis of limited collaboration, is clearly WP:UNDUE. Moreover this is an article about the Axis powers, we already have articles on German-Polish relations and so-forth. Additionally, reviews of article by the author of the article you linked to were quite scathing about their analysis, e.g.:

• Pease, N (1988) in Slavic Rev. 47(3): 544–45, wrote: "[Prażmowska] appears imperfectly acquainted with the history of interwar Poland and offers a number of dubious characterizations of its government and policies, seemingly borrowed from an uncritical acceptance of the hostile judgments of official postwar Polish historiography."
• Biskupski, MB (1992) in Am. Hist. Rev. 97(4): 1210, wrote: "Prażmowska has used Polish archival or published materials sparingly and a number of errors result. In general, the Polish side of the picture is weakly developed."
• Wandycz, PS (1988) in Russian Rev. 47(3): 343–44, wrote: "[Prażmowska's] apparent inability to use French materials may be a bit of a handicap. Worse still, [she] seems unaware of the existence of numerous recent works directly relevant for her subject […]. Her overcritical assessment of Polish policies toward the Soviet union seems to stem from a limited knowledge of the subject."
• Cienciala, AM (1997) in J. Milit. Hist. 61(1): 188–89, wrote: "[Prażmowska's] evaluation of the Polish government's policies distorts both the overall picture and the issues involved […] It is a pity that Ms Prażmowska used her considerable scholarly abilities to produce such a lop-sided study."

The article clearly does not represent a consensus position amongst historians. FOARP (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: this from a reviewer on another Prazmowska work covering similar ground also indicates why they may not be a reliable source -

• "Czechoslovakia did not "snatch" Teschen in 1921 (p. 18) but in 1919; the declaration of non-aggression between Poland and Germany was not a treaty (p. 24); Rydz-Smigfy was never chief-of-staff (p. 24) but commander-in-chief designate; the Sikorski government was sworn in on September 30, 1939, and not on October 3 (p. 67); the Soviet-German accord was signed on September 28, not 29, 1939 (p. 67); Kramar was in an Austrian prison for a good part of the war and thus could not have been in Petrograd in 1916 building Czech legions (p. 75); "German" Reichsrat (p. 77) means presumably the Reichsrat in Vienna; "Versailles Conference" (p. 77) is a misnomer for the Paris Peace Conference; Slovakia was a German satellite but not a protectorate - whetherspelled with a small or a capital P (pp. 84, 117, 131); Alexander was not King of Serbia but Regent (p. 195); Bukovina never "belonged to Hungary" (p. 202); there was no Franco-Romanian military convention (p. 113);Tilea was not ambassador (pp. 109-118) because Romania had no Embassy in London. He is described correctly as "minister" in the index; the third partition of Poland occurred in 1795, not 1793 (p. 125); Petrula is an evident typo for Petlura (p. 130); Poland did not propose a preventive war to France in 1936 (p. 148); the coup in Belgrade took place on March 27 and not 28, 1941 (p. 203); Zog was not married to a "Habsburg princess" (p. 205) but to the Hungarian countess Apponyi; given geographic realities, Romania could not possibly have gained "Macedonian regions" (p. 209) after the First World War; Lithuania was not a kingdom (p. 214) when it formed a union with Poland (p. 214); in fact, its grand duke became Poland's king; the Armistice was signed on November 11, not 9, 1918 (p. 218); Zeligowski took Wilno (Vilnius) in October 1920, not 1919 (p. 211), and did not offer the town to the Poles but made it a capital of Central Lithuania; Voldemaras and Smetona were not "two officers" (p. 222) but seasoned Lithuanian politicians; Polish attempts to resolve the problems with Lithuania took place mostly in the late 1920s and not 1930s (p. 229); the three Baltic states did not become "German Protectorates" in 1941 (p. 237) but parts of the "Ostland." The author rightly sought to include diacritical marks, but her efforts are marred by some inconsistencies and small mistakes. It would have been more logical to use the anglicized Joseph or the Polish Jozef for Beck - Josef is neither....

...Oversimplifications, slips and errors were bound to occur but Prazmowska could have been more careful in reducing them to a minimum. Although there is some interesting material in this book, the reader should be on guard and not accept all the statements and interpretations uncritically."

I think we need a better source for this considering how error-prone Prazmowska appears to be.FOARP (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

None of the reviewers appear to dispute the German-Polish collaboration. Regarding the "scathing reviews", it's probably not by chance that all are by Polish authors at a time when nationalism was at a high tide all across Eastern Europe.Anonimu (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Do note that none of the reviews you mention are of the article I quoted, but of other works by the same author, and are not scathing:

• Nease, P reviews the book "Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, 1939" and has nothing to say about Polish-German collaboration or the lack thereof; overall review is mixed: "This information is definitely worth having for the judicious reader willing to sort the volume's virtues from its blemish".
• Biskupski, MB reviews the same book, does not address Polish-German collaboration or the lack thereof; overall review is rather positive: "Even if we were convinced of it before, the demonstration is edifying".
• Wandycz, PS reviews the same book, does not address Polish-German collaboration or the lack thereof; overall review is rather positive:"By and large this is a valuable and useful volume which can be read with profit by the historian and the interested general reader alike"
• Cienciala, AM reviews the book "Britain and Poland, 1939-1943: The Betrayed Ally". Since the book covers Polish policy after Germany invaded Poland, the review does not address a Polish-German collaboration that happened outside the timeframe of the book. The review is indeed rather negative

Please don't misrepresent sources anymore. Thank you.Anonimu (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

And here's what some other sources say:

• "Even Beck's unpleasant performance at the time of Munich was not planned in concert with the Germans... He did not like Czechoslovakia, but he did not plot its destruction." - Henry L. Roberts, 'The Diplomacy of Colonel Beck', in Gordon A. Craig and Felix Gilbert (eds.), The Diplomats 1919-1939 (Princeton, 1960), pp.603, 611
• "....it is clear that the Polish government wanted to prevent a German seizure of the whole of Czechoslovakia if, as they expected, the Western powers would not defend it." - Cienciala, A. M. (1999). The Munich crisis of 1938: Plans and strategy in Warsaw in the context of the western appeasement of Germany. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 10(2-3), 57-58.

So it appears that not only is Prazmowska considered inaccurate, but also that a number of historians flat-out disagree with the idea that there was any actual Polish-German co-operation over the dismembering of Czechoslovakia, and that the Poles did not want to "destroy Czechoslovakia" for the palpably obvious reason that Poland would be next. EDIT: this should be fairly obvious, but neither Pease nor Roberts are Polish surnames! Cienciala was an American citizen.

Based on the above it's clear that the views of Pramowska are WP:FRINGE and writing an entire section of this already-too-long article based on them would be WP:UNDUE. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As show above, Prazmowska is not considered inaccurate: though some of her details appear to be mistaken, overall opinion is mixed to positive. It is not FRINGE by any standard. Indeed the very fact that historians disagree on the role of German-Polish collaboration justifies a separate section in this article, indicating exactly that. Cienciala's argument sounds exactly like Soviet Union's claim justifying her invasion of Poland, but we can add it to the article if you insist.Anonimu (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I already expressed my opinion on the above RfC, and I maintain: majority of RfC's participants just express their own opinia without providing any sources. Wikipedia must reflect what RS say, and readers are not interested to know our opinia. Poland section should not be in this article. If her collaboration with Germany regarding Teschen is a reason, then how do we approach Vienna awards? These two events remind partition of Czechoslovakia, and Hungary (an Axis state), assisted by Germany and Italy, took a territory of another state (Romania), which happened to be ... the Axis state too. Clearly, Hungary were collaborating with the two main Axis states, and Romania did not (at least, it "collaborated" in an opposite sense, by ceding her territory). Meanwhile, both states are considered the Axis state. How can we explain this paradox?

The explanation is as follows: before 1940, we cannot speak about the Axis as some well defined political alliance, so we cannot speak about any collaboration by any third state with the Axis as whole. In contrast, bilateral relatioships and agreements between any third state and a future Axis state cannot and should not be discussed in this article. Let me give one more example.

During triple negotiations (UK-France-USSR), one of the main issue was guaranties for third states in case of German aggression. The Entente states (UK&France) were discussing with the Soviet Union if it can provide guaranties for several states, including Poland and Romania. Note, Poland and Romania were being discussed in absolutely the same context during those negotiations. Now answer the following questions: (i) if Poland's collaboration with the (future) Axis was significant enough to deserve attention in this article, how could UK&France discuss guarantees for Poland against German aggression? (ii) if Poland and Romania were approached in the same way by the participants of the Triple negotiations, doesn't it mean that Romania was not considered as the Axis state by them either?

The answers to these question is obvious: (i) Poland was never considered as "the Axis" ally by Entente leaders and the USSR, and by adding Poland we just add more sensationalism to Wikipedia, thereby discrediting it. I am going to resist to it by any means, including arbitration (and I will succeed, for my viewpoint is based on what majority RS say). (ii) By mid 1939, Romania was not the member/ally of the Axis either, and the reason is that the Axis was in a state of formation, it was a loose alliance, and it is deeply incorrect to speak about "the counties that colluded with the Axis" before 1940.

My conclusion is: all countries that had bilateral agreements with some (future) Axis members before 1940 should be removed from the article, and that is a good chance to make it more logical, focused, non-sensationalist and readable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• No Poland Section - The view that Poland was in some way a German ally during the relevant period of this article is clearly a WP:FRINGE view based on a review of the sources (particularly the Cienciala and Roberts articles discussed above which flat-out disagree with the idea that Poland collaborated with Germany or wanted to see Czechoslovakia destroyed), writing an entire section based on it would be WP:UNDUE. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to Poland Section - The view that Poland colluded with Germany in their dismemberment of Czechoslovakia is an established historical view (see Prazmowska article in particular, a reputed scholar with rather positive reviews of her works on Polish history). The view is not universal however, as shown in Roberts' article, and naturally is especially controversial for Polish historians who have to go at great length to justify the German-Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia (see Cienciala claiming Poland invaded Czechoslovakia to "save" it from total German occupation). A dedication section must thus cover German-Polish collaboration and different views on the issue.Anonimu (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Collusion with Germany in 1939 ≠ collusion with the Axis. Britain colluded with Germany too (in 1937), that does not deserve inclusion into this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Prazmowska (the reviews for whom consisted of paragraph-long lists of her errors, and tell you not to take what she says at face-value) is not enough to sustain the view that there was any such collaboration. Cienciala was an American, as was Roberts. Cienciala also didn't say that Poland invaded Czechoslovakia to save it, instead she was talking about annexation/partition of Czechoslovakia simply not being a goal. I WP:AGF but this Yes !vote is obviously not well-reasoned. Paul Siebert is correct that applying the same logic ends up with every country that had relations with an Axis country being drawn into this article. FOARP (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Prazmowska's reviews, as pointed above, are generally mixed to positive. One Polish reviewer did some nit-picking and highlighted quite a few spelling errors and some lack of attention to detail, i.e. mostly things that have to do with editor stuff, not content. Most of the reviewers (including many of Polish origin) do not dispute her view on Polish-German collaboration in the attack against Czechoslovakia. Cienciala, as indicated by our article, was a Polish-American, and she literally says Poland invaded Czechoslovakia (the same time as Germany) because "the Polish government wanted to prevent a German seizure of the whole of Czechoslovakia" (I assume good faith and take the quote as you presented it, I did not check it in the original source). The discussion of the German-Polish collaboration in invading a third country in 1938 warrants a short paragraph under the heading of bilateral agreements with the Axis powers. Indeed, if consensus is to remove such bilateral agreements from this article (as Paul Siebert suggests), the section about Poland would be removed as well.Anonimu (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

So, "Polish" sources aren't reliable except when they agree with you. And, indeed, "Polish" people like Prazmowska aren't described as "Polish" unless you want to discredit them based on their ethnicity. Cienciala is simply not saying what you think she is saying - she is talking about the over-arching goals of Poland, which was not (contrary to Prazmowska) to "destroy" Czechoslovakia. This is clear if you look at the section the quote comes from:

"A good illustration of the early stages of Beck's 'Third Europe' project is to be found in the instructions given on 18 April 1938 by Jan Szembek to the new Polish ambassador to Romania, Roger Raczynski. Szembek said he did not believe the Western powers would defend Czechoslovakia and told the ambassador to work for a Romanian-Hungarian understanding, saying a new power system needed to emerge in the region between Germany and Russia. From other documents it is clear that the Polish government wanted to prevent a German seizure of the whole of Czechoslovakia if, as they expected, the Western powers would not defend it."

Where is the evidence of this supposed German-Polish collaboration against Czechoslovakia? Certainly not in the above statement which instead says the exact opposite - they did not want Germany on their southern frontiers. Instead Poland was working with other countries (Romania/Hungary, both at that point not Axis countries) to thwart Germany. FOARP (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It is nothing specifically Polish about it, in the late 80s and through the 90s historiography all over Eastern Europe went into a hyper-nationalist mode (e.g. in Romania they were praising Nazi-aligned dictator Antonescu and were denying the Romanian participation in the Holocaust). Of course, not everybody went with it, but those who didn't became victim of vicious attacks by the nationalist bloc.

Regarding Cienciala, I was working with the quote you provided above; since it was incomplete my judgement seems a bit off-mark when compared with the full quote you posted now. It should be noted however that Cienciala describes intentions, while Prazmowska describes actual events (comparatively, Prazmowska also describes the belief of Polish govt officials that Poland will support Germany in an anti-Soviet war; they evidently did not have the occasion to act on this belief, though they did act against their intention in the case of Czechoslovakia).Anonimu (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Prazmowska describes her characterisation of events, that characterisation is not adopted by other reliable sources and is indeed opposed by them (e.g., Cienciala and Roberts). Again, it is notable that Cienciala, an American of Polish ethnicity, is "Polish" and "nationalist" in your analysis, but Prazmowska, a Briton of Polish ethnicity, is considered neither. FOARP (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There's already an RFC on this page about this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The poll is moot because "co-belligerent" is not a useful class of country supported by reliable sources in the context of an article about the Axis powers. It attempted to connect issues that are not connected using the idea of "co-belligerence". FOARP (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You are right about "co-belligerent" and current consensus appears to agree with that. However, the RfC also included a question about sections in the article.Anonimu (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The sections proposed in the RFC were also predicated on "co-belligerent" being a relevant class of country. FOARP (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It was not predicated on that, it's not moot, and you don't get to decide that an RFC is moot, especially since you're an involved participant. You're forking the discussion, and you've already removed the section from the article (while the RfC is still open), all of which is disruptive editing. Please correct this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Look up and see the discussion that followed, particularly the evidenced consensus that formed around "co-belligerents" not being a useful class. The RFC was a troll-poll started by an editor presently blocked for violating WP:3RR, which tried to daisy-chain unrelated issues, and in which no real evidence was cited for any position.

But fine, if you want to bring in an uninvolved closer to close-out that RFC let's see what they say. My guess is it's going to be *Pizza Guy walks into place on fire.gif*. PS - I find the objection to forking the discussion kind of strange given that you did exactly that above when you opened voting for removing co-belligerents from the infobox. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Returning to the topic of Beck at Munich, GROMADA, THADDEUS V. “JOSEPH BECK IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT POLISH HISTORIOGRAPHY.” The Polish Review, vol. 26, no. 3, 1981, pp. 68-71 is a really interesting reference that reviews a number of historians writing on Beck's role in the Munich crisis. Even including the worst of Beck's critics amongst those reviewed by Gromada, Henryk Batkowski, none of them endorses the idea that Beck was collaborating with the Germans. The worst they accuse Beck of is being "anti-Soviet" (which is hardly a surprise). Even Batkowski recognised that Beck was essentially anti-German, seeking co-operation with Romania/Hungary, not Germany. Gromada himself endorses H.L. Roberts position (i.e., Beck was not seeking Czechoslovakia's destruction). None of them agrees with Prazmowska's characterisation of events, which is clearly WP:FRINGE. FOARP (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's another one: WEINBERG, GERHARD L. “GERMAN FOREIGN POLICY AND POLAND, 1937-38.” The Polish Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 1975, p. 16:

"There was no formal German-Polish agreement on this subject [i.e., Czechoslovakia] at any time, though there is evidence that in return for German agreement to Poland's annexation of Danzig there could have been one".

Again, this points to Prazmowska's idea that Poland and Germany were actively collaborating being a WP:FRINGE idea. Weinberg is very clear that there was no such formal agreement. At most Weinberg speculates that there could have been such a deal if Germany had agreed to an annexation of Danzig by Poland - something that obviously didn't happen as Danzig remained an international city. FOARP (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

Fix typo from: "In contrast to the Allies, were no three-way summit meetings..." To: "In contrast to the Allies, there were no three-way summit meetings..." 47.232.152.67 (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

vittorio veneto and littorio

only the Veneto was at the battle of cape spartivento, thus the photo has a wrong caption Suppongoche (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)