Jump to content

Talk:Puppet state

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 162.216.189.67 (talk) at 23:09, 14 May 2023 (→‎Definition and distinction look daunting: indent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

US as a puppet state of Russia

Hello, I edited this article to list a common view that the United States is in a position to be governed by a group that places Russia's interests in front of American interests, see here. It was reverted as "Not at all similar to the articles definition of puppet state." I understand the reason for the revert, but I would like to state the case. The article defines a puppet state as "a state that is supposedly independent but is in fact dependent upon an outside power.[1] It is nominally sovereign but effectively controlled by a foreign or otherwise alien power, for reasons such as financial interests." In the citations included, I believe that I provided evidence that meets each portion of the definition: dependence on outside power; controlled externally; financial interest of the outside power to exercise such control. This is an item of high discussion, and I understand that it could be labelled as part of an ongoing news story. The facts are changing quickly. However, there is ample evidence that this is occurring in the United States today; President Obama addressed the topic at length at a press conference today. This is noteworthy, factual, NPOV and should be included in Wikipedia. Submitted respectfully, -NC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.172.106 (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The reason I rollbacked your edit was that it is somewhat POV (as the CIA and FBI are still arguing about whether it happened), in the case of puppet nations the puppet is smaller, and weaker, this is not the case with America, as it is (objectively) one of, if not the strongest nation in human history when it comes to military. The manipulating of an election (under the assumption it did happen) doesn't fit especially well, as the state over the puppet usually rules the elections (if any) without any need for pretending it's a democracy. America isn't dependant on Russia, nor the other way round, while America is (objectively) militarily and financially stronger, Russia isn't dependant on it. America isn't nominally sovereign either, its fully sovereign, again (assuming it did indeed happen) that is manipulating of politics. That fact alone doesn't necessarily imply puppet status. Generally Wikipedia doesn't adopt a "Post it even if the facts aren't in" mentality, because unlike the news there is no monetary benefit for being the first to talk about it. Thanks. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, we are subject to WP:RECENTISM, and are WP:NOTNEWS. Aside from that, as explained by Iazyges, it's a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim to present the global military power as being a 'puppet state' of the RF. It would require some serious WP:RS to back such content up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iazyges, I appreciate you engaging in this discussion (this is the previous editor, I created an account). I'll fully admit that I made this edit, recognizing that it would be a controversial edit - I did not in the least expect it to go unchallenged! I did phrase it in terms of uncertainty, which I recognize is itself an issue. However, given that this is an issue of global importance (to say the least), I believe it is necessary to begin addressing it throughout Wikipedia as a key factor in global politics (i.e not to be limited to the single page thus dedicated). With regards to the facts as you mention. Via review of sources, all intelligence agencies and the FBI now agree on what happened (the RF tried to affect the US election) and why (to help DJT, with the goal of making US government take specific actions more favorable to RF policy). There will certainly be more information that comes out on this topic, and more edits will follow. But until then, I think this situation reaches the definition in the article: the leader of the US is dependent on the RF for his election; the RF will exert significant control over the areas in its interest: these include financial interests (DJT transition already looking to eliminate sanctions), but more importantly geopolitical (DJT already stating that he is ok to accept RF de facto suzerainty over significant portions of Eastern and Central Europe). You say "without any need for pretending it's a democracy", but the definition in the article speaks of "preserving the paraphernalia", and an election is certainly such an example. Many of the other examples in the article had some elections; they were just highly influenced by the "puppeteer" - frequently through propaganda such as recently in the US. Nothing in the definition says that a weaker nation can not puppet a stronger nation - the definition is about influence and control, not raw military strength. I agree entirely that this statement falls into scope of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. However, I believe that there is now both exceptional evidence for what has happened and why - the long NYT article cited goes into high detail of what happened. Puppet states are all different in terms of how control is exerted, but we are in the range as defined by the article; if you do not accept it as I have written, perhaps you could suggest a way to present this information in a way that is NPOV? Again, many thanks for taking the time, especially as I am a new editor. Regards, Trajan99 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this specific argument also demand consideration of the Russian Federation as a puppet state of the United States owed to the admitted and acknowledged American influencing of the 1996 Elections, for some length of time? American political actors opened acknowledged as much (and since then, even actors within the Russian government have admitted that the election was fraudulent in at least some way). In 1996, the RF was demonstrably weaker economically and militarily than the US (which would suggest a more plausible arrangement than the reverse today, even if the RF has "bridged the gap" somewhat?). American influence is known to have reached domestically controversial levels in many areas, including the Russian foreign ministry and economic policy (alongside the influence of other states via international organizations like the IMF). Personally I don't think that meets the puppet state criteria fully either, but it seems to be at least as plausible, if not more so, than the US as a puppet state of the RF today (and closer to meeting that criteria given the "common sense" assumptions about power relations between puppets and puppeteers). 68.117.212.113 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet states or not?

We should make a clear distinction of what were actual puppet states and just states supported by outside forces. The article seems to mix them, particularly in the post-WW2 Soviet section. If no argument is made against it, i will try to change it myself in the coming days. Rikskansler (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, i've made my changes which I feel will more accurately portray the reality. If people believe it's better to not mention these 'Soviet-allied states' all together, that's fine as well. Nonetheless, it's an improvement compared to before. Rikskansler (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this assessment of this page in that it blends governments that are externally coerced and suppressed by force or threat of force (governments over populations which would prefer independence and/or the absence of the external power), and externally-supported revolutionary states with populations supportive of annexation or incorporation into an external power. Perhaps puppet state is an overly broad term, but it would seem that the latter fall into a different category. Of the examples given, this is clearest in the Republic of Texas and the Duchy of Courland, the Republic of Kuwait, the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and South Ossetia, which were developed through revolution by an ethnic group with the full expectation and intent of being annexed or incorporated by an external sponsor. This is more in line with unconventional warfare than the conventional application of the elements of state power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:800C:1501:FA3D:146C:F26C:21D6:20A5 (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the BPR and the Korean Empire

I removed the Belarusian People's Republic (which could hardly be called a puppet state, because it was established prior to the German occupation of Belarus and never actually received much support from the Germans or was recognised by them) and the Joseon dynasty (which had existed a long time before 1895 and was merely removed from the Chinese suzerainty to be later annexed) from the list. And I really doubt that the Republic of Texas should be here either. --Svawald (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, it definitely doesn't fit. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Current" section and "multiple issues" tag

This needs to be discussed and the issues resolved or the tag needs to be removed. It's been up for two years. You can't put a tag up expecting it to remain forever purely to voice your personal disapproval of the claims or information presented. It's temporary. 108.34.201.56 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. If the issues remain unaddressed (see the talk archives), tags are not removed, full stop. Problems with content don't disappear because the content hasn't been improved. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then discuss it. When tags come with no specific objections, then no one knows what needs to be improved—only that some editor at some point didn't like what they read. This is why these tags direct readers to the talk page where these problems are meant to be addressed.
There is nothing in the archive related to these specific tags. One says the section "may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints." Which viewpoints? The other that "this section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies." Which are being given undue weight? Without discussion, the tags serve no purpose—and it's up to the person raising the objections to start the conversation. 108.34.201.56 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. As you've noted, the tag was added by a user (here) on what appears to be solely on a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT basis. Cheers for the heads up! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet states and client states

I am curious as to why the terms "client state" and "puppet state" are used interchangeably. Puppet states are a type of client state, but many articles refer to puppet states as client states instead of the former. Shouldn't said articles be changed to puppet states or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conner Neu (talk • contribs) 08:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an good observation. It has, however, only been used the once in this article for the Slovak Republic as having been a German 'client state' which I've tagged as needing a reliable source using the term. I've also started on tracking other articles using 'client state' in contexts where such usage is WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just found it odd that states that are "classed" as puppet states are called client states. I would understand using "client state" for dependent states whose exact status is questionable, but most "clients" are "puppets".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conner Neu (talk • contribs) 00:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand

Don't you think New Zealand is puppet state of Australia? They have many agreements, both military and civil, and influence of Australian culture is huge in New Zealand. Many post-colonial laws apply to both countries. They recognize the same monarch and have similar flags. New Zealanders can even serie in Australian military forces. Union between New Zealand and Australia is similar to confederation between Belarus and Russia. New Zealand would not survive without Australia's support, and for me it's example of modern puppet state.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.32.61 (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One might as well, using this reasoning, argue that the Republic of Ireland is a puppet state of the U.K. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty of the puppet/client states

The puppet/client states are sovereign states? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegally annexed Baltic republics"

What does the article mean when it states that the Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, and Republic of Estonia were illegally annexed? Illegal according to who? The League of Nations? The source given for the information is a paper with a similar title that talks about Baltic nationalism after the fall of the USSR. Edward Benes (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World War II section issues

It seems to me that the section on WWII puppet states is a duplication of the page List of World War II puppet states and as such to me should be removed, in addition to the fact that its neutrality is disputed and less actively maintained. I suggest it be removed and replaced by a link to the aforementioned page. Cnd474747 (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Soviet Republic

Hungarian Soviet Republic was not a puppet state. During its short existence, Soviet-Russia was too weak to be able to create puppet states. In fact, leadership asked Russia for help, but they were unable to provide, because they were in the middle of their own civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.110.138 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and former afghanistan as US puppet states

Kosovo was created mainly by US intervention, same goes for the former Afghanistan regime. They should be included here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:a401:4b80:99c2:49d9:cfd5:a4ad (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Citobun: Noted that you reverted my removal of three links at the the end of the article. Given that your edit summary "Whitewashing" is quite vague, I invite you to clarify this so we may have a discussion on how we can refine the edit.

Thank you Carter00000 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus

Most people consider Belarus as a puppet state of Russia since the start of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. There may be some objection voices, but I think it should be (at least) listed out in the "by limited opinion" section. 182.239.85.145 (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these people? Do they also consider Belarus to be under "Russian occupation"? Mellk (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Russian and Belorussian official position, they created a Union State. However, many recent sources are saying just that, e.g. Russia was joined by Belarus (a puppet regime state of Russia), which has served as a launch pad for Russian forces. [1]. That's a book. Or Russia's aggression has brought about fundamental changes in the economic relations of the Baltic states with Russia and the puppet authorities of Belarus, which was the backbone of military operations on Ukrainian soil. [2]. Hence it can be included to the page as such. My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove donestsk and luhansk

They dont regard themselves as contries niether does russia enymore or the rest international community 86.114.251.232 (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with this statement. Due to how the war in Ukraine is going I refuse to edit the republics out, specifically the Annexation of South Eastern Ukraine by Russia. FusionSub (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One could say they are former puppet states. My very best wishes (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Transnistria's status really disputed?

Outside presumably Russia/Belarus and Transnistria itself, who disputes the status of that entity as Russia's puppet state? (That said, I did check and Transnistria's article currently does not even mention the term puppet state). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is indeed regarded a puppet state of Russia: "For over two decades, Transnistria has been the puppet state of the Russian Federation on the territory of the Republic of Moldova." (see Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law Volume 18, 2015 - Pages 48-49) [3] - it explans at length why this is puppet state. It needs to be included to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes I didn't mean to question the inclusion of Transnistria here. What I question is why is this under 'Disputed examples' section and not the 'Recent and current examples' one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Actually, I did not check the page where this info was already included. My conclusion was the same: this should not be included. Now, as you are probably aware, arbs are voting to impose a one-sided interaction ban for me for interaction with you and VM. If that happens, I would appreciate if you do not ping me and do not comment on my talk page - just to make it easier for me. But of course you would be welcome to comment about me on any noticeboards if needed since this is a one-sided ban. As I said during arbitration, I have great respect to you and VM. Personally, I am fine and do not care much about these restrictions simply because they do not restrict me from anything I was doing or would like to do, except maybe only one thing: taking part in any administrative proceedings where you or VM would be a party. This is fine. I have no hard feelings whatsoever and probably should say "thank you!" to arbitrators. But if anything, my collaboration with you and VM in the past was productive for improving WP content. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did the most recent major restructuring and retitling on 3 May 2023 (this month). I changed the title of "#By limited opinion" to "#Disputed examples", but didn't move Transnistria.
While I'm no expert, my own personal impression is that Transnistria is probably no less an artificially-created puppet than were Donetsk and Luhansk (in contrast to Belarus, whose real autonomy has been discussed, and whose borders and U.N. membership pre-date 1990) — and therefore should be moved up to join Donestsk and Luhansk under "#Recent and current examples#Russian Federation". —— Shakescene (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think all such examples are disputed by administration of such states. Therefore, making a specific section for "Disputed" does not make sense. Titles like "recent", "former", etc. do make sense.My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shakescene I'd support moving Transnistria to the recent and current section. The other Russia-related example there, Belarus, is I think much more controversial, so I think it's fine to leave it in the 'disputed' section. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a copyedit (notes)

So far, just some nitpicks about passive voice and verb-subject agreement. Many small changes. If someone believes that one of them is in error, please let me know, but I am not addressing any statements made by the article in this first pass. I will probably have some thoughts about the article substance in a couple of days. Offhand I agree with the people saying that some of the examples should move to list articles.

  • Do we have an established EngVar?

*Why is a map of the British Empire in the section on Napoleonic France?moved it -el

  • Was the French First Empire really "revolutionary"?
  • The entry for South Chahar has the flag icon for Chanan. Are these the same polity?
  • De Wang - this name is not in his BLP article
  • Mengjiang: can we merge with its various constituent parts?
  • Princely states
  • Tuvan People's Republic - tagged dubious-discuss, see no discussion. No opinion at the moment on whether this was a puppet state
  • Yemen: can a government be a puppet of both the UAE and Saudi Arabia?
  • " Belarusian Central Council (1944) – The Belarusian Central Council (Biełaruskaja Centralnaja Rada) declared the independence of Belarus on 27 June 1944 before dissolving on 2 July 1944 after the German retreat from Belarus." => suggest moving this to list of puppet states Elinruby (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The British Empire map would go with text about the Indian princely states, but all that's under British Empire right now is a single sentence about Zanzibar. So the map has crept upwards.
  2. I was trying to consolidate and distinguish the puppet states established by French revolutionary armies (Batavia, etc.) with those set up by the two Napoleons (like Joseph Bonaparte's Spain and the Mexican Empire), as both kinds of régime came between the French Bourbon monarchy and the Third Republic. I wasn't trying to identify one as part of the other, but on the other hand, I'm trying to avoid Balkanising this any further into one-state categories.
—— Shakescene (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nod, sounds reasonable enough here on the surface where I still am.Elinruby (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yemen: I knew this was complex, but you have no idea how complex: you could create an entire college course from just the multifarious, densely-connected and very, very long articles about the Yemeni "Civil" War and various participants.
Briefly and much too simplistically, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. back different factions, each commanding (this being a relatively-tribal society) some part of Yemen's territory and people. This is complicated further by the Houthi and U.A.E. backed Southern Transitional Council reviving the old pre-unification divide between South Yemen (Aden & the Aden Protectorate forming the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen) and North Yemen (the Yemen Arab Republic). The U.A.E. sponsored Southern Transitional Council is itself a breakaway from the separatist Southern Movement.
In brief it is intellectually quite possible to see several puppets of different regional powers.
See: Yemeni Civil War disambiguation, Yemeni civil war (2014–present), Foreign involvement in the Yemeni civil war (2014-present), Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen, etc., etc. (several of these approach or exceed 200k — just the right length to fill an idle weekend with nothing else to do. ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
was wondering to what extent the interests of the UAE aligned with Saudi America. Enough, I guess. Elinruby (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting complete absence of any mention of the Portuguese or German Empire and previously-mentioned very incomplete British Empire.
  • I think we should nail down the categories a bit better then provide 1-2 examples of each category.
  • Texas or Puerto Rico wanting to join the United States probably does not equal puppet state, I agree, assuming that nobody is disputing that this is what happened. Elinruby (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Warsaw

Seeking second opinions, especially since I see that Piotrus (talk · contribs) has looked at this, but open to anyone else as well. My original question was whether Napoleon was still a revolutionary after he started calling himself emperor and invading other countries. The Duchy of Warsaw is a decent test case on whether Napoleon was creating puppet states. Presumably this was by right of conquest, but apparently he also took the time to go install an administration? Elinruby (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is if DoW was a puppet state then we need to look at the sources. My own opinion is that yes, it was a puppet state but it was better being Napoleon's puppet state than being the Tsar's puppet state and these were the only alternatives on the table. Not all puppet states are equally puppet-y. Volunteer Marek 17:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A quick check in academic sources ([4]) does show we can find some RS calling Duchy of Warsaw a puppet state. Right now I don't think that is a controversial claim (DoW's main article right now uses the term client state; some RS also use the term satellite state... but realistically those are near synonyms, although we seem to have separate articles for all). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my subhead seems to equate the pre-Thermidor First Republic's clients with those of Napoleon. I just wanted to group these together since they were so closely related and since this article has far too many sub-sub-heads as it is. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be just me having a conceptual problem with the idea of an absolute monarch as revolutionary. He did start out as a general for the revolutionary government. Just reality checking some stuff. Unpopular opinion, Vichy pretty much was too. They were just permitted to think otherwise for a while. The Germans were good at that. Elinruby (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could suggest (or write) some alternate sub-sub-subhead. Mine was not intending to call Napoleon a revolutionary, just to group his puppets with those of post-Bourbon/pre-Napoleonic (or revolutionary) France. The latter, as I understand it, became his puppets once he took over France, although (again as I understand it) some of the puppet republics were turned into Napoleonic-era monarchies. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah. I made a an effort to add up the number of Bonapartes installed in random countries such as Brazil, and failed. Strangely, there doesn't seem to be a family tree anywhere. But listen, I usually put such notes on big messy copyedits/translations and they are intended as much for me as anyone else. Certainly not as criticism. Interestingly, though, Piotrus and VM seem to be saying that his effect was indeed somewhat revolutionary, better than the Russians, anyway. I'm just fascinated that on his way to Moscow he stopped off to set up a legal system. (Yes, yes, I am sure this happened over time, but I could reel off a list of other invaders who didn't do that. Stop me if I get too French on you ;) Elinruby (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition and distinction look daunting

We've all struggled here over what is a puppet state, and what is something else, but the new template makes this even more intellecutally daunting:

Client state

How do we even begin to sort this out, and then sort out our examples? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple. If there are multiple RS describing a state as "protectorate"/"puppet state"/whatever, then it can be mentioned on the corresponding page. There is no requirement that all sources classify the object/state in a certain way. It should not be included to a page only if such assignment represents a "fringe"/negligible minority view. Obviously, one state may belong to several different categories - this only needs to be sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and perhaps Shakescene needs to be reminded that bottom line it is that simple, but he's been working on structural issues as well as text and I think that's what he is talking about here. I don't know if anyone has gone all the way through the references we already have? I know I questioned the inclusion of Vichy here, if only because the collaboration article doesn't seem to agree. But we should do that, if it hasn't been done. But before I comment further: what new template? Is this something Mathglot did? if so, they are pretty good about accepting input if there is a problem with the template itself. I haven't gotten into the specific definitions on each of those pages, but I wouldn't be surprised if they disagree. Maybe poli sci types are who we should be trying to recruit. Elinruby (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
on second thought, now that I am reminded of previous discussions, isn't the problem with this particular page that there are too many examples? So for purposes of this page maybe we just eliminate the ones that are hybrids of some kind? Any good text about them gets moved to a better place? Let's take Vichy -- the collaboration page makes much of the fact that they were trying to negotiate for the release of French prisoners of war. They are still such a classic example of collaboration that somebody invented the word "collaborationism" for what happened in France. And although they delayed the onset of full-on Nazi-ism, they did not prevent it. Is there a better example of a puppet state? Greece maybe but maybe I am just saying that because I don't know the details of that history. So we maybeshould start by picking the three or four best examples and moving the other sections to better homes. Seems worth thinking about. Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puppet_state&oldid=1154831776"