Talk:Axis powers

Iran

Iran was invaded by Britain and the USSR in August 1941. The invasion was related to WWII and the Allied war effort (see Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran). Should Iran be added to the 'Controversial cases' or 'Co-belligerent state combatants' section?--Whicrowave (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Iran was overwhelmingly pro-Axis, like Egypt and Iraq. (86.154.234.235 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC))

Rmoving Mengjiang (Inner Mongolia)

I am proposing to remove Mengjiang from the list of nominally independent Japanese puppet states. The reason is: a. The article is about those states, authentically or nominally independent, fighting against the Allies in WW2. b. Mengjiang was a nominally "independent" puppet state only until 1940, afterwards it nominally became an "autonomous" part of the Wang Jing Wei regime. c. Neither Japan nor any of its puppets was formally engaged in WW2 until Pearl Harbor in 1941, by which time Mengjiang had lost its nominal "independence". 120.21.51.14 (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ad b: Yes, it was a puppet state of Japan until 1940. In that year is was taken over by Wang Jingwei regime, another puppet state of Japan.

And according to some scholars, the Second Sino-Japanese War was part/a prelude to the Second World War. So no, removing it seems a bad idea. The Banner talk 01:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe most scholars consider the Second Sino-Japanese War to be NOT a part of WW2 until Pearl Harbor, as the generally accepted WW2 start time is Sept.1939, not 1937 when China and Japan went to war.

Furthermore, if Mengjiang is to be included, so should be the Provisional Government of the Republic of China and Reformed Government of the Republic of China, which like Mengjiang were nominally "independent" puppet states which existed until 1940 when they, again like Mengjiang, were absorbed into the Wang Jing Wei regime.

120.21.51.14 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

If there's no further discussion, I will proceed with edit tomorrow, thanks. 120.21.176.30 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not how it works here. Give it time for discussion. The Banner talk 10:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to including the Chinese puppet regimes or to removing Mengjiang. The concept of the "Axis powers" is somewhat fuzzy when you move beyond the Tripartite Pact powers and in this article we can cover these puppet states in their own sections or as part of the Japanese war effort. Srnec (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input of opinion, Srnec.120.21.181.94 (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

To "The Banner", you are surely welcome to give any further reason for your objection, though I belive the one you gave yesterday has been properly addressed and no longer an issue. 120.21.181.94 (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Sad for you, it are your arguments that are rebuffed.

But @Srnec: has a point that the Japanese client-states/puppet-states make the article somewhat fuzzy. With the fact that the present article is already quite long, a reorganisation/rewrite looks sensible. In this case by shortening the separate entries of the Japanese client-states/puppet-states (just a list) and move the background to Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The rather random removal of just one puppet-state is not correct. The Banner talk 10:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop making offensive comments, "The Banner". I have responded to your opinion with explanation, you responded to this with nothing but saying I am sad. Ironically, it was also you who said "That is not how it works here". This time, no, that is NOT how it works here. 120.21.114.196 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your description of the proposed removal of Mengjiang as "random" is not precise too. I have clearly explained why Mengjiang is not compatible with the current list, while all other Japanese puppet states are -- they fought against Allies in WW2 as nominally "independent" entities. 120.21.114.196 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

And why are the others suitable? And do you have any opinion about my proposal? The Banner talk 01:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

To "The Banner", I have addressed the difference between Mengjiang and the others, but in case you still find my point ambiguous, then I'll say it again: the other puppets fought in WW2 as nominally "independent" states, but Mengjiang fought in WW2 nominally as a part of the Wang Jing Wei regime.

Furthermore, I previously thought your proposal of shortening was addressed to Srnec. As for me, my concern is about removing Mengjiang because it doesn't fit into this list. You're surely welcome to shorten the article in your proposed way, at least I wouldn't disagree with it. 120.21.0.80 (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

To "The Banner", while I remain convinced Mengjiang doesn't belong to the list, if you disagree with its removal, then I will not proceed with the edit, since a consensus can't be reached and I won't force it upon you. Happy new year to all. 120.21.56.109 (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Andrzeja Olejko Słowackie epizody z polskiego Podkarpacia Sanok 39.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Status of Japan

Was Japan actually part of the Axis? I'm pretty sure they had their own alliance going, the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japan just signed the Tripartite Pact. Frogface08 (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogface08 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read the lead, it is generally treated and considered like that.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC))

Norway and Finland

Norway and Finland were both allies of Germany from 1940 to 1945. (86.154.234.235 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC))

Norway doesn't count because it was under military occupation, had a puppet government led by a party that never got relevant amounts of votes, and had a governor or "reichskommissar" appointed by Hitler himself. Norway was not even nominally independent, but was rather a reichskommissariat! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Norway and Finland both took part in the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. (86.154.234.235 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC))

RfC on infobox

Should the infobox be slimmed down, as in this edit? Srnec (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• The rule for inclusion that I applied was "Did they sign a peace treaty with the Allies?" This excludes co-belligerents like the Soviet Union, Iraq and Danzig as well as puppet states like Slovakia and Croatia. There is no need to separate the belligerents based on when or whether they signed the Tripartite Pact, which is not the defining feature of the Axis. As the first sentence indicates, the only thing they had in common was that they "fought in World War II against the Allies". Signing a peace treaty with the Allies is proof that a state was Axis. Note that while this proposal would "remove" the Croatia issue, that is not the only reason to prefer it. I wrote that "I'd prefer a plain list of 'Axis' powers" back in archive 7 when discussing the USSR. Srnec (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Seems a little excessive, but I would support an intermediate edit. Personally, I think the distinction of when and by which instrument parties joined as axis powers/co-belligerents is content that is useful to the reader (especially those with limited knowledge of WWII) at a glance. Thus I can't see how stripping that summarized context out of the infobox is a step in the right direction. I also find the argument that "signing a peace treaty with the Allies is proof that a state was Axis" has more than a little bit of an WP:OR streak to it, and is not consistent with the WP:WEIGHT of historical research to the extent I am familiar with it as regards what defined an Axis power as opposed to a state that was aligned with one in some capacity at some stage in the war. So I'd just as soon those list remain more extensive and delineated. All of that said, I think the footnotes are excessive: infoboxes are meant to summarize the broadest details of the content of the article in a fashion that is as brief as it can be while remaining salient; a more nuanced discussion of the particular can and should be reserved for the main body of the prose, and needn't be repeated in the infobox to break down the particulars of the box's own content. There are additionally WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues with all of this small print. So, in short keep the more fullsome and subcategorized list of belligerents, but remove the subnotes. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly oppose I would axe the "Co-belligerent states" section. Most sources on the Axis powers do not define the co-belligerent states as being Axis powers (for instance, I am not finding sources that say this with regard to Danzig, and with regard to Finland it is a matter of some controversy), so this part of the infobox has the potential to confuse or mislead readers. However, per Snow's comment I do not think that most reliable sources define Axis powers based on peace treaties. Therefore, I support continuing to organize the template based on the Tripartiate pact signatories. I do not have an opinion on the subnotes. Slovakia should certainly stay in the template because (until 1944) it was not a puppet state and joined Hitler's war more or less voluntarily. Reliable sources state that it was one of the Axis powers. (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• No, more details the best.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC))
• Possibly but prefer 2017 version [Here]... It gives more detail and better information for the reader. It was a long standing version changed without an RfC I believe. How about this. I agree with KIENGIR that more details is best. Surpising as I had the impression before they were for short hand “simplified” names instead of the actual full names of the entities. As for going by signers of the tripartite agreement this is also kind of an WP:OR. Also it misleads the readers as Slovakia and The Independent State of Croatia were Axis puppets installed by German or for NDH German and Italy. The current infobox implies equal weight to the puppet and their masters as well as other states such as other existing states like Romania and Bulgaria that aligned themselves with the Axis Powers, they weren’t invaded and puppet regimes put in place. The reader should know the difference. Of course a puppet state will be aligned with the master state that installed it. And they answer to that master that here bing the axis powers. Slovakia and NDH were aligned and fought for the Axis side but were not “powers”. NDH is regarded as “what is no more than a puppet Axis regime” even looking at the History Channel website. So to call it an Axis Power seems quite POV push even if inadvertently. (Even though the NDH regime was eager to follow Hitler’s racial persecution laws and then some and had autonomy to an extent.)At least when looking up Axis Powers in Encyclopedic Brittanica and other such resources. I don’t see them regarded as such. Which is pov not neutral. Long story short: And so I think the infobox should go back to its previous version listing all collaborating entities. As it was [Here] and that the RfC should include this as an option. More details is best KIENGER points out and might agree with this option. And would make sure readers see all associated with the Axis powers. It isn’t long and seems fine on my screen. I don’t understand why it was changed and decided that Tripartite Signers defines Axis Powers. It seems kinda cherry-picking. Again, more details would be better. Else I would support Srnec’s new more simplified version as it address the issue with undue WP:WEIGHT equalizing puppet states to their master states as would be the perception of the readers. Either of the two I am fine with. This is why I really dislike infoboxes in general. OyMosby (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As pointed out in the Tripartite pact talk, establishment history of countries are not relevant or a base of any distinguishment, Slovakia and Croatia are equal partners, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC))

That is a point of view you hold, yes. But that doesn’t make it a matter of fact. It is a base of distinguishment. It also doesn’t address my other points in my post. But as was pointed out in the Tripartite pact talk, a puppet state is not equal to the master state. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a puppet. A puppet state is not the same is an existing independent state such as Bulgaria, German or Romania. I don’t get how that can possibly be argued. Otherwise NDH would’t be dubbed “axis puppet state” So I don’t understand your view here. Slovakia and NDH were not equal partners to Germany nor functioned freely like Romania. NDH being created from German-Italian occupied land is a differentiator absolutely. A puppet doesn’t make the choice, the master finds whoever will align with them and install them in power such as Hitler did with Ante Pavelic and his Ustashe terrorist organization. From a Croatian Ultranationalist POV NDH would be dubbed a legitimate official Croatia (as apposed to a meere puppet pretending to be it’s own country) as I’ve seen rightwingers try to do, but most RS don’t label it so. Also Federal State of Croatia was not part of the pack along with different borders. So saying Croatia isn’t specific enough, etc. Again all pointed out in the Tripartite pact talk page. It is a base of distinguishment when another country baring a similar name exists later on particularly with different borders. As another editor @Peacemaker67: explained as well there. No point re-explaining all this here. It’s all on that talk page. And I do not wish to do reruns of past debates which had no conclusion. The focus is what version info box is best. Ultimately I mentioned that being you agree with more details being better, I see no reason for not reverting to the original infobox [Here]. I also find it amusing that the infobox map doesn’t show NDH as an axis power but as (colonies or co-belligerents) so it seems this was all understood for quite a while. OyMosby (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I won't repeat the discussion made already in the Tripartite pact talk (in this we agree, despite you did again go to details), so to your recent argumentation, which I disagree and reject the answer is there.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC))

Again I was agreeing with you that more detail is better and that I think the original infobox that I linked was better detailed. You chose to reply about an old discussion to begin with, to be fair. That was not my main point in my vote explanation. I already said we will not see eye to eye on the matter of state naming and who is equal to who. That isn’t the main point in my vote explanation though. I didn’t repeat details in our past conversation. My “recent argumentation” is new not the same as the other talk. Not even 5% of it. So I don’t understand what comes across as a snide remark of “despite you did again go to details”. As I haven’t repeated myself. Most of my reply is about OR, Weight, the original infobox, me agreeing that the more details the better, the other user Peacemaker agreeing on the name, and how Croatian Nationalists like to view NDH as a real country (and some still think it exists). My replies are detailed rather than a short sentence as a reply as you did so others know what my reasoning is. However you replied in a “matter of fact” tone as if that talk page came to the same conclusion as you, when really you simply stated your pov not a definitive fact and I stated my pov on the matter. But rhat doesn’t explain what version of the infobox is to be used which is my main point of debate. My focus is the infobox not the Slovakia NDH naming debate from while back. I brought it up as one of many different points is all for the infobox change. It isn’t the ONLY one. Let’s be civil now, KIENGIR. I meant not to antagonize a rerun of an old discussion. You rejecting my proposal of going back to the old infobox is not answered on the Tripartite Talk page. What do you mean? OyMosby (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand and notice everything, even if I am concise, and the repetitive content was much higher in percentage. No civility harmed, again, discussion about this took place in the Tripartite talk, any of my answers are there related in details, I just summarized here my point shortly.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2020 (

Not really that much higher but okay. Now that that’s been established repeatedly. How about your take on the other 95% of my vote comment not related to the Tripartite TalK Page discussion? The Weight, the original infobox, me agreeing that the more details the better, etc, The actual main point of my vote and this RfC? Would the 2017 version be the best settlement? If there are mistake what are they since we both agree having more infomercial is better else why not just list Germany, Japan and Italy if we want to keep refining the list of possible mistakes as Srnec mentioned in their proposed version?OyMosby (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

UTC))

I disagree these percentages, as I reflected. The old-detailed infobox, even by correcting errors was rejected to be re-added repeatedly, I don't support just listing the the three you mentioned, btw. current infobox is flawless.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC))

That’s fine,. They aren’t meant to be taking literally but that majority of my comment is about the infobox and manny other points unrelated to the tripartite discussions. To find an actual number percentage is irrelevant. But again not the point and was talked about ad nauseam. My comment on using just the three axis powers was sarcastic to make a point of the ever increasing reduction of information. On your talk page however you said you would be for the 2017 version of the infobox granted we fix the dates which I would be for as well. If you think more information is better, than how would the current infobox be flawless as it leaves out a lot? Also it was a smal minority of editors that rejected the old version. OyMosby (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I think the infobox should be divided into two: a) the three Axis powers, and b) those that actually joined the Pact (Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and the NDH). Yugoslavia's membership was only two days, and that doesn't justify being in the infobox and can be adequately covered in the body. Leave the rest out of the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll add this what the Britannica article includes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Yugoslavia not being worth listing but works as a little clickable note as is right now. Would it not be relevant have a subcategory denoting Slovakia and NDH being puppet states for the reader compared to other signers of the pact? Also what do you think of restoring this original long standing version [Here]? Only adjustments would be date and separate categories for Puppet states and Pupet governments. Again to be as accurate as possible for the readers OyMosby (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether the NDH or Slovakia were puppet states is debatable, we shouldn't be parsing this sort of thing in an infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, Yugoslavia is not listed mainly, it is only mentioned in the notes, which is appropriate. I think the current infobox is fine.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC))

@Peacemaker67: I’m confused here. Didn’t you always state that NDH was a puppet state? As is the consensus of RS, articles about them And pretty much any book about them referring to them as a puppet state even the Nurnberg trials and so on? You had argued this on this talk page in the past that they were installed by the Axis powers and would survive otherwise. Also what do you think about going back to the long standing version as I linked [Here] ? KIENGIR at told me in an other discussion that they would consider it if the dates were fixed.OyMosby (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67, I would accept that but for the exclusion of Finland (and to a lesser extent Thailand). Srnec (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec:I don’t see why Finland would be removed as Co-Belligerent being that other sources label them when talking about Axis Powers. Also could you make it an option on the RfC to choose the 2017 version (granted with tweaks to dates and such) like [Here]? It gives editors more to choose from. OyMosby (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker implied the removal of Finland. If that isn't what he meant, he'll have to clarify. Srnec (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I see I misread. I thought you were advocating. However, what about my proposal of including the 2017 version (granted with tweaks to dates and such) like [Here] in the RfC choices?. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References