Talk:Axis powers/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Iran

I thought that Iran was part of the Axis powers, because the Allied Powers invaded Iran and Iraq in 1941. This was mostly done by the British and the Soviets.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.195.12.169 (talk • contribs)

The Iran section was moved to Cases of controversial relations with the Axis of World War II a while back.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mexico?

I know Mexico wasent part of the Axis and probabley tried to stay Neutral, but do you think some Mexicans had relationships with Fransisco Franco and Spain under Franco? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.104.11 (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Victors Dictate History Propaganda?

Although I'm teaching Russian communist era in history right now, I have noticed, over the decades, how historical fact changes as we study more and release more records hidden away, sometimes for embarassing rather than security reasons, by Secrecy Acts.

I'm as white as they come but do notice a discernable 'victor' and anti-Japanese in particular, bias to these articles; as do those critics on the Tripartite Discussion.

I did go out and purchase that overly expensive book by former Soviet then Russian historian Boris Slavinsky, translated and added to by English historian Geoffrey Jukes "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" 2005. I do agree, the fact these wiki-authors leave that out completely does seem suspiciously biased. It sure has revealing information.

I won't go into all the reasons why, alot of effort went into the Tripartite Discussions to no avail obviously, but I agree these articles are biased and I'm amongst those teachers who don't allow students to use Wikipedia as a source for homework, especially in 'us vs we' topics either.

.DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Removes Japan from (the Axis)

It is true. The Oxford Dictionary, published in the UK and New York, has taken Japan out of their definition of the Axis. "Concise Oxford Dictionary: Tenth Edition Completey Revised" Hard-cover Page 93 (the Axis) the alliance between Germany and Italy in the Second World War.

When we asked Oxford why the change at a teacher's convention, we were told that it was found that there was no authenticated original documentation signed by the Japanese agreeing to the term 'Axis' as title of any activated alliance with Berlin and Rome.

I was also interested to learn that instead of Mussolini, it was actually Italian General Gombos, (who had died in October,1936) who first coined the phrase 'Axis' to refer to a Rome-Berlin alliance. Based on the fact Rome and Berlin sat on the same longitudinal axis on the globe.

When I found supposed documents in English on the web, we've never had a reply to our request for a copy of the original document they translated into English. We keep getting referred to other English documents but none have provided the supposed original documents in their languages signed by Japan, Germany and Italy.

If someone can provide a link to an authenticated copy of a treaty signed by Japan officially named, or renamed 'Axis' actively allying itself to Germany and Italy please provide it. Then I can decide on a debate whether Oxford is wrong. Thank you.DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of our schoolboard, colleagues and interested students, we contacted the ONLY source we've found claiming proof of an actual signed 'Axis Pact' in the 'Avalon Project', through the Yale website for evidence of the 'Axis Pact' they claim to present. It's been months now and no proof has been provided. We suspect you are correct.AthabascaCree (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan

It says that Italy joined Germany because they were ticked at the Allies for no giving them what they were promised at the end of WW1. Didn't the Japs join Germany for the same reason?

First, whoever you are, it's etiquette if not rules here to sign your posts. See tutorial for how, just click on the row of tildes at bottom of your screen.

Second, that's those historian's entire point, Japan never did "join" Germany in the Second World War. If you read all the historical citing at the actual "Tripartite Pact" page, where I'm similarily disappointed the authors and wikipedia haven't retracted unproven statements, you'd see the mass of criticisms of these articles.

Third, the point is valid. The only military pact Japan signed with Germany was a mutual defense pact, the Tripartite Pact, which was never activated, so no, Japan was never part of the 'Axis'. Kinda like we used to say Pakistan was part of todays' "Axis of Evil" but now we don't. It's a good thing for us Japan didn't "join Germany" as you say. Most historians agree that if Japan declard war on Russia with Germany and Italy, that the USSR would've collapsed and those wars might've ended even worse for us.

Finally, he makes a valid point, and I'm very disappointed that the authors nor wikipedia haven't pulled the unproven statement inferring Japan was part of some official activated "Axis" military alliance. Obviously no-one has met the criterion of original documented evidence and I've read those recent books/publications since the release of more Secrecy Files and those critics at the "Tripartite Pact" page are quite right, that assertion should be retracted from wikipedia here, by wikipedia's own rules and guidelines. Very disappointed in author and wikipedia.

TheBalderdasher (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To the first editor: Please refrain from using the term "Jap," even if you do not intend it as an ethnic slur, because that it how most will interpret it. Erik the Red 2 (Ave Caesar) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland

The subject of Swiss neutrality during WWII is an important one, and should be included along with less prominent topics such as the allegiance of Albania or Denmark. Erik the Red 2 (Ave Caesar) 23:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For that stuff we have that nice article Cases of controversial relations with the Axis of World War II.--Staberinde (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This Article Should Be Removed for Bias & Failure to Prove Statements

By Wikipedia's own rules on articles being neutral and objective, and statements requiring proof, this entire article should be removed.

The author's prejudice and bias are evident from the start by leaving out the "Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" April, 1941. The pact that proves that the Tripartite Pact was never activated as a military alliance because this is the pact the author doesn't want readers to read that explains why the Japanese refused to declare war on the USSR even after the Axis declared war on it, and why the USSR refused to declare war on Japan after the Allies declared war on Japan. See "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" Boris Slavinsky/Geoffrey Jukes 2005.

The author again hides the fact that Japan cancelled the Anti-Comintern Pact and broke all relations with Germany when Hitler signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact with Stalin in August 1939. The author is therefore intentionally misleading readers by implying the pact was still in place when even the Pact of Steel let alone Tripartite Pact were signed.

The author can show no document signed by Japan, Germany and Italy "OFFICIALLY" founding the Axis Powers.

There was no Axis Pact including Japan, just stick to accurate signed alliance titles instead

I agree with teach.

When wikipedia articles use the term 'propaganda' to describe the Japanese idea for the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere but of course doesn't use the word 'propaganda' to describe our British Commonwealth, Organization of American States, European Union or Atlantic Charter... we are only proving the criticism that English-Wikipedia is not an objective, unbiased source for information but instead a collection of our own propaganda view on even foreign topics.

In my attempt to prove him wrong, I didn't even notice that the links I and the wiki authors here used to the Avalon Project supposedly from a Yale(American bias?) site, that the documents linked to are actually DRAFTS not the actual signed versions of the treaties and agreements. So those aren't 'proofs'.

We in English wikipedia have a great opportunity to present an internationally unbiased data base, where unlike our historians, we are not obligated to continue to propogate our own propagandic mis-representation of history to sell books or keep our jobs. So, comon wiki, help us out here.

That being said, I agree, wikipedia should refrain from claiming Japan was part of any 'Axis Pact'. We've searched but can find no evidence that Japan signed a document titled 'Axis Pact' with Germany and Italy,
nor can I find any proof they signed any document agreeing to the re-naming of the 'Tripartite Pact' as 'Axis Pact' instead either. We even asked a teacher who, though Korean, could read and write Japanese, to help us look for such evidence and nothing. In fact, the more I tried to prove the opposite, the more I realized that even our own diplomats, when writing up the unconditional surrender documents signed by our enemies, did not use the term Axis in Japan or even Italy's surrenders.

Unless the members of an organization signed a document agreeing to the naming/titling of their organization, then it is totally improper to refer to it by a prejudicial term.

By refusing to correct the Japan/'Axis Pact' myth here, like we have corrected the 'Remember the Maine' as cause for the Spanish-American war, wikipedia is only fueling criticism English-wikipedia represents anglo-american biase rather than objective data.

Just because someone else kept referring to Japan as being part of the Axis doesn't make it true. I don't see the author of the English Wiki page on Iran using the term 'Axis' on it. And I know I've been hearing/reading Iran referred to as part of the modern 'Axis', Axis of Evil in particular. So obviously Wikipedia English does uphold the rule not to allow authors not to represent nation's treaty/alliance titles. We appear to be more concerned at offending Iran than Japan here.

It seems 'Axis Pact' was a war-time propaganda term, never the actual title of even the Tripartite Pact some claim. I've seen lots of links showing where we called Japan a member of the Axis, but like I said, the more I went around to try to prove that myself, I actually found the opposite.

This would explain why even when forcing unconditional surrender terms on our enemies, while the signed documents spell out the term 'Allies' and members, nowhere uses the term 'Axis' not only with Japan, but to my surprise, not even with Italy who tried to coin the term in talks with Germany because Berlin and Rome were on the same longitudinal axis on your globe(go check). I've never found evidence for this author's claim that Japan officially agreed in writing to rename the Tripartite Pact as 'Axis Pact'. I can only find it referring to the relationship between Rome and Berlin only.

Teach says we used it as a propaganda term to try to defend ourselves against the international, even domestic, opinion of 'Western Betrayal'. That, in the end, by pressuring Stalin to break his peace with Japan, stabbing them in the back no less than we called Italy for doing to France, that we were no better than our enemies. That the rules of law applied to everyone else but ourselves. That by the end of the war and our allying with the Soviet Union, MORE, NOT LESS people around the world lost their freedom.

To forget that the reason we actually declared war on Germany was to defend Polish sovereignty, which in the end, we did not win.

To forget the fact that not only did we not uphold the founding principles of our 'Allied' cause,
but that we actually encouraged the Soviet Union to violate the very principles and international law we were supposedly fighting for by violating her Neutrality Pact with Japan and 'stabbing her in the back' even while Japan was trying to use the USSR to negotiate a surrender to us no less.

We must have nearly a dozen exchange students in our school from around the world. And even those from countries that fought even Japan, like Holland and China, told us on Remembrance Day that they aren't taught that Japan was part of the 'Axis'. Some aren't even taught the term 'Axis Pact' to my surprise.

So let's prove to the world that we don't need to keep using our old propaganda like North Korea or other Stalinism to hide our historical mistakes.

But then again, I've seen these authors repeatedly delete actual contrary quotes from English historical sources even encyclopedias, so I don't know anymore.

But maybe teach is right, and looking for objective information on wikipedia in regards to ww2 or Japan or them is like "looking for an objective piece on bears from Steven Colbert." Lol.
I want the teachers here to let us use wikipedia for our school-work, so comon dudes, cut out the biased documents here.

Oh, and as for 'Western Betrayal', was and is the opinion that if we were serious and sincere about the 'Allied cause', international law, human rights and freedom, that we should have stood up to Stalin no less than we did Hitler. This wasn't just an opinion by ungrateful foreigners, but Churchill, Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur and the likes too.

Trying to prove the opposite to myself, I asked a teacher who claimed to be a proud member of the US marines in Vietnam why, if as teach said, it was wrong to claim Japan was part of the 'Axis Pact', why it was still in our history books. He stunned me with his unexpected answer. He said, in his opinion, it came down to 2 major 'historical cover-ups/shames'.

a) Especially after post-war images of Hitler's 'Final Solution' American historians wanted to cover-up the fact that America was not willing to declare war on Hitler even after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.

b) The American Presidents were not as serious and sincere about the principles of the 'Allies' as Churchill was; and were too arrogant to admit it was the mistake of the century to trust and under-estimate Stalin and actually bribe him to enter the war against Japan resulting in us not only giving up half of Europe but half of Asia to communism as well. Leading to the Cold War of course.

And he agreed with teach, by inaccurately linking the words Japan and 'Axis' we were also trying to cover-up the fact that by encouraging Stalin to attack Japan while still bound by their Neutrality Pact, we were promoting the worst violation of the same international law we were supposedly fighting the war for.

Maybe teach said it best when he said "the most dangerous people in the world are the ones who think they are the only ones in the world not victims of propaganda."24.64.52.109 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite a rant there... Who's "teach"? Manxruler (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rants like these are the reason I left this article a year ago. This article seems to be a magnet for POV pushers, people preaching their fringe history "research" and nationalists who will argue to death against any amount of evidence. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The rules and guidelines regarding civility force me to refrain from making any comment regarding the content of this rant or its author, except to say that it is without common sense, and creates exactly the situation it rants against.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Finland

Everyone has been discussing Japan but there's been no mention of Finland, which, while a co-belligerent against the Soviet Union, was never a member of the Axis powers or an ally of Germany (as noted in the article itself). I believe an alteration to that map is in order, as it is heavily misleading regarding Finnish participation in the war against the Soviets.74.47.87.231 (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Though contributor it's etiquette here to sign your posts. But definately agree with you. Where were we when Stalin violated 5 of his Neutrality Pacts invading neutral neighbours like Finland? If I recall correctly, Bulgaria did not declare war on the USSR and in fact was used twice by Stalin to ask Hitler for surrender terms. I also believe I recall that Churchill actually wanted to go to Finland's aid even if it meant marching through then-neutral Norway and Sweden to do it.

But Bulgaria attacked Yugoslavia even a day before Germany (April 5th 1941)Megaribi (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's disappointing enough these Wikipedias don't have to take down statements they can't prove or even dis-proven, but that our historians continue to lazily just repeat 60 year old propoganda rather than cop to the truth finally. The same people who criticise the Japanese history books lie in theirs too. I believe Finland history books portray 2 separate wars in what we call one ww2.AthabascaCree (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The author can show no document signed by Japan, Germany and Italy with the title "Axis" in it.

Therefore he is just repeating wartime propaganda, not historical fact that can be proven.

The term "Axis" was coined first by Italian General Gombos, who had died in October 1936, describing any future alliance between Berlin and Rome which lay on the same longitudinal axis.

Again, the author can NOT show any document signed by the three agreeing to "FORMALLY" rename the Tripartite Pact as the Axis Pact. The author is incorrect in labelling the Anti-Comintern Pact as making Germany and Japan 'allies' as it was not a military alliance. See quotes discussion on Tripartite Pact page the Oxford Companion to WWII quotes. It was not even a defensive pact, merely a sharing of information on communist party activities.

As already mentioned, since there was NO signed document by Japan, Germany and Italy agreeing to the term 'Axis' to represent the Tripartite Pact, the part declaring Japan as the Principal Axis power in Asia is obviously false as well.

Japan's first major action was in fact in 1931 when right-wing militarists disobeyed direct orders from Tokyo and invaded Manchuria, not 1937 as stated.

Again, there is NO signed document including Thailand claiming it a member of any 'Axis Pact'. The author's bias shows again by refusing to point out why Thailand allied itself with Japan. It was because of a series of unfair territorial concessions forced upon her by France backed by Britain and the United States costing her 3 provinces.

By Wikipedia's own rules and guidelines, this article is so full of untruths that it should be removed altogether. AthabascaCree (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Tripartite Pact is considered by most historians to be an expansion of the Rome-Berlin Axis to include Japan. The Tripartite Pact's nickname was the "Axis Pact". There are many sources which describe Japan as an Axis member. In this source found at Google Books, Japan became a conditional member of what the article calls the "Axis Powers".[1] A book written in 1941, called the "New International Year Book" calls the Tripartite Pact the "Axis Pact".[2] The book called the Folly of War by Donald E. Schmidt calls the Tripartite Pact the "Axis Pact".[3] The book "World War II" by Loyd E. Lee calls the Tripartite Pact the "Axis Pact".[4] The book "The Axis Alliance and Japanese-American Relations, 1941" by Paul W. Schroeder.[5]. The book "Diplomacy of Aggression" speaks of the "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis. The book "The World Since 1919" by Walter Consuelo Langsam cites the "Berlin-Rome-Axis". The Google search Japan+"Axis Pact" results in 311,000 results.[6] Thus it is common that the Tripartite Pact is seen as the "Axis Pact" or the "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis". The term Axis Powers is used to generally refer to all those countries and autonomous entities that were united in alliance particularly with Germany or Italy that were at war with the "Allied Powers". If this is an inappropriate title, I suggest that administrators be contacted to review whether the title and article is biased.--R-41 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

R-41 you've just proved the point that the term is a propaganda title, not an actual historical diplomatic treaty. By your reasoning Elvis is still alive just because enough people say he is. Your comment is proof America's learnt nothing from Hearst and his yellow journalism. The same sensible research method that proved Iraq, forget Alquaeda, was responsible for 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction on the verge of mushroom clouds in the United States.

Gee, for years we had Bush and Blair getting everyone to call Iraq, Pakistan and North Korea as the 'Axis of Evil'. Then, more of these sources of yours who speak on behalf of their foes, switched Pakistan with Iran. Then your people took Iraq out of the Axis by occupying it. Then your people took North Korea out of the Axis after they proved they did have the bomb. Genius, Iraq was part of the Axis because it had the bomb, eventhough it didn't; and North Korea is no longer part of the Axis because the do have the bomb, eventhough enough sources like yours said they didn't.

By your logic, courts should listen only to your ex's lawyer and witnesses in your divorce, not yours. Truth by gossip, what a great sense of reliability.TheBalderdasher (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Change the article style

To make this article more consistent to Allies article, please prepare chronology of joining to Axis forces with small flags.Megaribi (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pratically impossible as Axis membership has never been as clear case as with Allies, especially then we add all those puppet states, so such chronology would only cause never ending disputes.--Staberinde (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Axis autonomous territories"?

In my opinion, those areas did not have neither enough practical(as independent axis members) nor official(as axis puppet states) independence to be included in this article.--Staberinde (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not the right decision to make. The Military Administration of Serbia is an important instance where non-state autonomous political entities established by the Axis Powers played a role. Getting rid of this section will start another fiery edit war over whether Serbia should be considered just "occupied territory" or a "puppet state". Furthermore, Albania was a protectorate to Italy just as Bohemia and Moravia was to Germany. Albania was run by Italian governors which intended the area be colonized by Italians just as Bohemia and Moravia was run by German governors to be done with Germans. Still, these two autonomous entities allowed Germany and Italy to rally people of the dominant ethnicity to fight for them. The reality was that it was a joint German-Serb political entity run by German governors along with a Serbian civil government which called for Serbs to support the government. I am afraid that scrapping "Axis autonomous territories" will start a fiery edit war, especially among Balkan editors as nationalistic Croat, Serb, and Albanian users will fight over Serbia's and Albania's positions in the war. I've seen these kind of vicious edit wars start, please don't let another one start. Keep this section so that

Soviet Union

This was incorrectly placed in "Controversial cases" so I have moved to "Co-belligerents" where it should have been in the first place. There is no controversy - historians agree that Germany and the USSR cooperated in the invasion of Poland, thus making the USSR a co-belligerent of Germany. (I suspect the para should be called "USSR" rather than "Soviet Union".) Macguba (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's true that they supported each other in 1939-41, and that both countries invaded Poland (but they did not fight together), but can you point out some reliable sorces that define the Soviet Union and Germany as co-belligerents? Because if you can't, you can not make such changes. You should also beware that there have been some pretty heavy discussions on this in the past, where the consensus has always been to leave the Soviet Union in the "Controversial cases" section. 96T (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. At best the inclusion of the Soviet union in the Axis powers is "controversial", though the country is probably more characterized as The Allied Power of WWII. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WTF? I can't believe I'm reading this. Please explain to me why invading Poland in cooperation with Germany is not being a co-belligerent. Macguba (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably because the USSR ended up being one of the three major powers to defeat Nazi Germany. Could also be that the USSR was building fortifications against Nazi Germany. The USSR had no right to take over half of Poland, but that act alone doesn't make the USSR "Axis". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no "cooperation" between Axis and Soviet forces during the Soviet intervention in Poland. In any case, this is most certainly controversial and belongs in the "Controversial" section. The contribution of the Soviet union in the Allied war effort so massively outstrips that of the other Allies the very inclusion of the Soviet Union on this list is controversial. When the low countries were invaded in 1940, the western Allied armies did not wait for the full official diplomatic permission to enter Belgium, does that make them a co-belligerent of Germany? These arguments would all stand even if you had an actual verifiable source characterizing the USSR as a "co-belligerent", which you do not. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We'll leave aside the contribution of the USSR to the Allied cause, partly because for much of the time it was nil, but mostly because it's irrelevant to this page. I am not wedded to the phrase "co-belligerent" or indeed any other phrase, and am happy to have a new section if that is felt appropriate. I don't need any sources in addition to the article itself, which admits the Soviet invasion of Poland, and I'm puzzled that you should suggest I do. Have you actually read the USSR paragraph in the article? There is only one truth: the USSR was, for part of the War, on the side of the Axis. Consequently, it should be listed as an Axis cooperator/ally/co-belligerent or whatever. Macguba (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If The Truth^TM is what you're looking for you're in the wrong place. The Wehrmacht and WW2 Germany in general were 75% destroyed by the Soviet Union. Its a very narrow viewpoint that characterizes the Soviet union as a co-belligerent of the Nazis. Without a shadow of a doubt I can state that the Soviet Union was never on the side of the Axis. The fact that the Soviets managed to force Germany into allowing them to take most of Poland while the Wehrmacht does all the work is certainly not a "good thing" for the Axis, its a diplomatic concession forced by a rival power, not someone that's "on the side of the Axis". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Union's role is controversial and can be seen in different ways. Putting it in Controversial cases section is logical solution.--Staberinde (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Union definitely never joined the Axis. They did, however, conduct extensive talks about joining the Axis in late 1940 (they actually weren't that far off from doing the deal), but it fell through.

In terms of being a "co-beligerant", they certainly divided Eastern Europe with Germany, invaded their portions and their militaries directly co-ordinated (in fact, they marched in "victory" parades together in Poland--see Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). As well as invading Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, they also fought Finland, who was supported both politically and militarily (supplies) by the Allies and the League of Nations at the time (early on).

I'm not sure what the definition of "co-beligerant" is for this article. If it's the legal definition for international law, the Soviets violated it, though they tried to keep it hidden (e.g., see hiding around Basis Nord and providing Northern Sea Route for the German auxiliary cruiser Komet).

Of course, they can't just be labeled as a co-beligerant outright given that, after Barbarossa, they were the primary force fighting the Nazis. And clearly, in the end, the largest actor for the defeat of Germany.

You might want to add a section at the bottom of the article for negotiations by countries regarding Axis membership. Obviously, the Soviet Union would go there. I seem to remember potential Spain and Denmark discussions, but that may have been about something else. Mosedschurte (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A great(though expensive) source on the subject, the first I saw reputable Russian and English historians concede to with newly-released evidence, comes from "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" by Slavinsky and Jukes. Using latest unclassified even Soviet secret Diplomatic and Intelligence records, completely contradicts much of our own historical record.

It clearly proves just how disturbingly close the Soviets came to joining the Tripartite Pact, even the strategic planning that was proposed between Stalin and Hitler regarding Istanbul and Turkey, the mid-east and India not to mention Japan's hopes regarding China. Since the authors have never been sued for liable etc, I can only assume that all their sourcing of unsealed documents and quotes are accurate. To their credit, they actually show photos of the original signed documents in the original language.

There were numerous posters here or on the Tripartite Pact Article, that actually quoted that book on this very topic, but wikipedia has allowed the original authors(or wikipedia themselves?) have deleted most of those properly-sourced pieces of evidence.

AthabascaCree (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no mention of Soviet Aid to the Germans through direct military assistance in Base North and escorting German Navy through the Northen Sea Route (all mentioned in Behind Closed Doors - Laurence Rees). Considering economic help is mentioned, direct military assistance should also be put in. -Artem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodboy7557 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Did the Soviets actually fight the Polish Army? The Soviets entered Poland when Nazis already defeated the Polish Army. In order to be labeled as a "Belligerent" you need to do something more then just sign a paper. As Director said, the Soviets acquired the land to buy time, after Nazis routed the Poles. Had there been no Soviet involvement, would the situation change? Would Poland have stood a chance, when France feel in a month? Yes, what the Soviets did to Poland in 1939, with 20/20 hindsight, was wrong, but since there was no fighting, nor troop support, I don't see how the Soviets are Belligerent. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Axis autonomous territories again

I am growing more and more sceptical about including this part in article. Those areas had neither de jure or de facto independence, and even their autonomy was minimal or non-existant in most cases. Considering that even General Government has been included, it probably wont take too long until Reichskommissariat Ostland and Military Administration in Belgium and North France follow. This article should not be the place to list German occupation administrations. So I suggest removing whole "Axis autonomous territories" part and moving all information from there to Cases of controversial relations with the Axis of World War II which is better place for all such trivial information which shouldn't belong to Axis powers main article.--Staberinde (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree--Erikupoeg (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

India: Bose disambiguation

In the section on India's provisional government: Most, or perhaps all, references to "Bose" by surname alone need to be disambiguated. In most or all cases, given names must be used, as the surname alone is ambiguous in the context of the sectiion. In many cases, it is not clear to the reader which Bose is being referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

singapore and malaysia under japanese occupation

Can any one add the Vichy France please? They actively cooperated with Germany and Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.37.17 (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't read the lower part of the article. Someone should add japanese occupation of Malaysia and Singapore.

Well, as far as I know, Singapore and Malaya were placed under Japanese military administration, and no puppet governments like Manchukuo or Wang Jingwei government in China were ever installed. The Japanese had planned that for Indonesia, but was stopped by the surrender of Japanese Empire. But, some local militia units were indeed organized by the Japanese occupation force, who deployed them to tackle with partisans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niobium101 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Axis Powers

What exactly did they have to do with the holocaust?? Was it that they were all allies? Im almost positive that thats it, HELP! I need it in like a one scentence,,, NOT A PARAGRAPH. I know im being picky but thats whats requiared for the project. Thanks bunches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.138.43 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hitler directed the Axis Powers to exterminate ethnic Jews in the Holocaust, citing a passage in Mein Kampf that "Denton, Texas just sucks so much, it's tickin' mein off, dude!"Mosedschurte (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism and anti-semitism sections

Why are the sections "Racism and Anti-Semitism in Shōwa Japan" and "Racism and Anti-Semitism in German-puppet Italian Social Republic" in this article? Shouldn't they be in Empire of Japan and Italian Social Republic instead? 96T (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Finnish Jews

In recent years proof and documents have emerged that showed there was a specific part of the Finnish army during its time when it was closest with Germany, which was devoted to tracking down jews and handing them over to the SS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.141.251 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Never heard about such thing. I hope you have some sources to support your claim? --Whiskey (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't either read anything like that. But I have in mind that there where actually Jewish company's in the Finnish army. But I cannot remember the source. But in general I think at least it's not to much to say that the Finnish government, as much as possible, tried to keep Germany away from Finnish domestic politics. Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.37.55 (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Iran

Since, the Soviet Union and United Kingdom invaded Iran during World War II doesn't that make Iran a co-belligrent of the Axis powers. Also, Germany and Italy had troops to help out Iran. -JayLeno175 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that Iran was forcibly occupied, but hadn't allied itself with the Axis powers. In 1942 it signed a tripartite alliance with the Soviets and Britain, and in 1943 declared war on Germany. See Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran and The Persian Corridor And Aid To Russia Hohum (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How is this article B class according to so many projects, let alone GA?

Many sections are completely unreferenced. Hohum (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing puppet regimes established by the Axis

1. Belarusian Central Rada was a puppet regime backed by Germany.

2. The Lotok Republic was an autonomous region within German occupation zone in the U.S.S.R.

3. Norway under Vidkun Quisling was a puppet state of Nazi Germany.

4. The Baltic states and the Netherlands had local autonomous administrations under German supervision.

5. A puppet Romanian government-in-exile was established in Germany after Romania switched side.

6. Various regional puppet governments existed in Northern China before they were absorbed into the newly-created Nanking goverment headed by Wang Jingwei.

7.Though not states, the Yugoslav Chetnik movement and Ukrainian Insurgent Army could be seen as the Axis powers' co-belligerents in the later stage of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niobium101 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And also the protectorate of Bohemia and Molavia.Vulturedroid (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• No. 3 on the list would have been correct if the Quisling regime had ever gained any power to wield, but they didn't. They were just puppets, did not do anything independently, and does not belong here. They belong over at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, which you seem to confuse with the actual Axis powers, and that's where they are listed. Manxruler (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Axis powers" article includes sessions for puppet states established by the Axis members, like Serbia, which also could not do anything indepently and was nothing more than a puppet of Germany. Vulturedroid (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, puppet regimes generally dont have much independence anyway. In this article general standard has been that puppet should had been officially an independent state, like Slovakkia, Manchukuo and Croatia were historically. I am not really aware what was official status of Nedic's Serbia so I can not really comment does it fit criteria or not.--Staberinde (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. And the Quisling regime never gained independence, even officially. Manxruler (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If that is so, then Greece and the Principality of Pindus should be removed as well. Greece had a puppet government, but it was never recognized as fully independent by the other Axis powers. It did not have a foreign minister, for instance, and was subject to the authority of the German and Italian ambassadors, and later the Reich plenipotentiary Hermann Neubacher. As for the Principality of Pindus, it was more of a fantasy scheme than a real state in any sense of the word. It never had a definite territory, an actual government or authority, an army etc. Constantine ✍ 17:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On Belarus - the country had one of the best Partisan Movements in World War II. Initially it fought against Nazism. I think it's a mistake to call Belarus Nazi supporters, when they resisted as much as they could. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 7, but they must be mentioned as Independent Fighting Units, not representative of their respective countries. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Axis Powers?

I'm not so sure that the definition the article uses (e.g. the participants in WWII that were opposed to the Allies) is necessarily a good one. Since the Allies article defines the Allies as the participants opposed to the Axis, this creates a bit of a circular logic. Moreover, some countries, such as Finland, participated in the war against the Allies but were not members of the Axis. So perhaps the Axis should be defined independently rather than relative to the Allies, e.g. "Signatory nations of the Tripartite Pact and their allies" or something like that? Xinophiliac (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Listing countries under occupation but otherwise uninvolved in the Axis war effort like Denmark, Greece, Serbia or Montenegro, and even cases where actual states or even governments never existed beyond the dreams of a few collaborators, like Pindus and Macedonia, stretches the definition of "Axis powers" too much. A more precise definition is necessary. Constantine ✍ 17:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well how about this: countries that aided Nazi Germany and did not develop massive resistance movements. I know that the Greeks had one, the Serbs had one, etc. You can also add a note to countries that switched sides at the first they got, like Romania. And Finland, during the Siege of Leningrad aided Nazi Germany. One could not have besieged Leningrad without Finnish assistance. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Italy also had strong resistance, removing it from here isn't really an option. Similarly I doubt that we would manage removing Vichy France (another one with strong resistance, not to mention Free French forces) without someone reinserting it. I don't really see any good definition which wouldn't have lots of borderline cases, for example even if we would stick purely to Tripartite Pact members we would still have Yugoslavia case.--Staberinde (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(Citation needed) means no speculations. Right?

"The Indian National Army saw plenty of action (as did their Burmese equivalent). The highlight of the force's campaign in Burma was the planting of the Indian national flag by the "Bose Battalion" during the battle of Frontier Hill in 1944, although it was Japanese troops from the 55th Cavalry, 1/29th Infantry and 2/143rd Infantry who did most of the fighting.[citation needed] This battle also had the curious incidence of three Sikh companies of the Bose Battalion exchanging insults and fire with two Sikh companies of the 7/16th Punjab Regiment (British Indian Army)[citation needed].

The Indian National Army was encountered again during the Second Arakan Campaign, where they deserted in large numbers back to their old "imperial oppressors" and again during the crossing of the Irrawaddy in 1945, where a couple of companies put up token resistance before leaving their Japanese comrades to fight off the assault crossing by 7th Indian Division.[citation needed] It subsequently held the area around Mount Popa, protected Kimura's flank while the latter attempted to retake Meiktilla"

I (just a lowly unregistered user, forgive me wikip...) very reasonably deleted these paragraphs since they serve no purpose other than read like a generic comic book rather than an encyclopedia (even if it is on the internet).

Jwesley78, however, perhaps thought that the drama should be kept, to add a little spice to the whole WWII section and reverted the page back to its former self complete with the very refutable and funny paragraphs.

I think the wikipedia page on a much-studied topic such as WWII should be representative of the site and stay factual and unopinionated (it's not a word), and far far away from speculations. Back the drama of WWII up with sources, and wikipedia shall reclaim its credibility, if any.

Could the people who have the authority to make 'legitimate' edits that don't count as "vandalism", do so given the lack of sources and common knowledge about this piece? Hey thanks!! ps. I'm probably in the wrong section or something (wikipedia is hostile). Sorry in that case. Also, add the period to the last sentence of the last paragraph I quoted, it's kinda bothering me. Ha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.213.137 (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Lighten up. It was reverted primarily b/c you made no comment for your edit, and deleted two paragraphs. The paragraphs probably needed to be deleted. They've been in the article for a couple years, and nobody has bothered to delete them. Give some other editors an opportunity to look at this before it gets deleted. Jwesley78 (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, the edit being referenced is here. Jwesley78 (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend you :/ Are you on just my case? I gotta get all the laughs out so I won't be replying but Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.213.137 (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. :) If no editor comments here, and no citations are found soon, I think it would be safe to remove the paragraphs. (I wish I had the time/knowledge to determine the validity and find citations for these paragraphs myself.) Give it a couple days, and be sure to leave a comment as to why the paragraphs are removed. Jwesley78 (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweden

This is nonsense. Controversial cases section was only created for countries, that are occasionally considered Axis member/co-belligerent/puppet/collaborator states, but about what no clear consensus exists. Sweden doesn't qualify in any meaningful way.--Staberinde (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You must be joking. Sweden allowed German troops to pass through its territory from 1940 to 1943. 212.85.13.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

That doesn't make Sweden even remotedly Axis Power or co-belligerent. We have whole article on such stuff Cases of controversial relations with the Axis of World War II. Controversial cases section in this article is purely for countries about whom there is dispute should they be included in some other section of article(like "co-belligerents" or "puppet states") or not.--Staberinde (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sweden and Finland were officialy neutral, but they violated the Hague Convention. Therefore, Sweden and Finland belong here. 212.85.13.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

To say that Finland was neutral is a very rough generalisation. Until 1939 it had a non-aggression pact with Soviet which Soviet unilaterally terminated and some months later they assaulted Finland. So if Germany is to be considered as the core of the Axis forces then that would make Soviet an axis force as well and Finland an Allied force. That said with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in mind. I haven read the Hague Convention but maybe someone should do before stating that Sweden violated it. It can definitely be debated weather or not there is room for the transient traffic in the Hague convention but that is more a question of how far you can bend rules and technicalities.Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.37.55 (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Drawing parallels between Sweden and Finland in WW II is frankly ridiculous. Finland declared war on later also signed peace treaty, it can be argued that Finland was not officially allied to Germany (whole co-belligerence thing), but it definitely wasn't neutral. On other hand Sweden may have violated Hague Convention by allowing troop transfer, but insisting that Sweden may be counted as member of Axis due that doesn't make any sense.--Staberinde (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

They supplied Nazi Germany, they allowed the transfer of Nazi troops, and they had no anti-Nazi resistance movements on a massive scale. Sounds like Axis collaboration to me. Additionally, they supported Finland with troops. They may not have "officially" declared war, but hey, for all intents and purposes they certainly acted like the Axis. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just remembered: some of the Swedish troops helped the Nazis with the Siege of Leningrad, while acting as pro-Finnish "volunteers". I don't think the besieged people of Leningrad would believe that Swedish neutrality is "controversial". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sweden couldn't really have anti-Nazi resistance because it was neutral and not occupied. Supporting Finland during Winter war wouldn't count as pro-axis activity as at that time USSR was big friend of Germany. Swedish volunteers at Barbarossa and later would be more relevant, assuming that sending them was organized by government and not simply few private citizens going on their own. For example there were also some Estonian volunteers in Winter War at Finnish side, but at same time country was already effectively in Soviet sphere of influence and had Soviet bases which were also used for attacking Finland.--Staberinde (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about Swedish Volunteers in the Continuation War, not just the Winter War. For some reason certain people love talking about the Winter War, but completely forget that the Continuation War existed, and also try to forget the disastrous Siege of Leningrad which took place, with Swedish "volunteers". Considering that I cited the Siege of Leningrad, which started the Continuation War, and took place after the Winter War, I fail to see how you thought that I was talking about the Winter War in the previous section. The Swedish Government allowed the "volunteers" to leave rather openly. In the US, when volunteers tried to overthrow another government, they were busted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominica#Attempted_coup The types of "volunteers" you are talking about, is similar to the British Sea Dog concept, where Britain used to train and equip "pirates" to plunder the Spanish Empire and rape women, but if they got caught, Britain wasn't responsible. It's a very convenient way to deny responsibility for the government's actions, while at the same time promoting said actions. It's similar to the current US thing with Blackwater where certain organizations claim that Blackwater, (raised and trained primarily using US taxpayer money,) is not an American organization, but is "independent". Same exact thing with the Swedish "volunteers". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already met this knowledge that Finns can time-travel before, but could you still specify how the Siege of Leningrad started the Continuation War? When you are in the issue, could you also specify under which country Sea Dogs operated? Or in Dominica? --Whiskey (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Gladly, and I promise not to use a time machine. The Soviets were afraid that with the Finns so close to Leningrad, that the Finns may enable the Nazis to blockade the city, and encircle it from the North. That ideology started the Winter War, and that same ideology resulted in the start of the Continuation War, i.e. keep the fighting away from your city. Now if the Finns, and their Swedish "neutrals" did not encircle Leningrad from the North and did not prevent the US from supplying food to Leningrad, the Soviets would have been wrong about the whole ordeal. Unfortunately, Stalin was right, as the Finns, in cooperation with the Nazis, attempted to wipe Leningrad from the face of the Earth and almost succeeded. Leningrad was the key to Winter War, and was the key the the Continuation War, which was a continuation of the Winter War. The Siege reduced the population from 3 million to 639,000, according to Richard Overy in his book, Russia's War. Had there been no Siege of Leningrad, there would have been no justification for the Winter War, and the Continuation War from the Soviet Side. Unfortunately it happened, and as historians, we must acknowledge facts, instead of speaking about time-traveling.

Dominica was an example of what a neutral country does. The US didn't really care what would happen with Dominica; in other words, they were neutral towards it. So when a group of thugs with US citizenship, and money earned in the US decided to overthrow the Dominican government, the US didn't say "all right" as Sweden to its "neutrals". Instead the US stopped the overthrow, and sued the thugs for violation of neutrality. Nothing like this happened in Sweden, not even after the war. The Dominican Case was an example of how a neutral country must act.

Sea Dogs came from the UK, and worked under the UK, or as it was called back then, Britain. The most famous Sea Dog, Sir Francis Drake was knighted by the Queen. He was also the second in command on the battle of Gravelines, where the British sunk the Spanish navy. And that's just one example. As I've said earlier, by hiring government sponsored agencies, such as Sea Dogs or the modern version, Blackwater, countries can attempt to claim to neutrality, irrespective of the damage done by the groups they funded. This is similar to what the Swedish did in World War II. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You should provide all the reliable sources you obviously have, to back up the claim that Sweden was intentionally supporting Axis war effort with volunteers, and you probably should correct Sweden during World War II with those appropriate well sourced facts. Also I love how Siege of Leningrad is used as justification for Winter War. I guess Battle of Berlin in 1945 must be also appropriate justification for German invasion during Barbarossa.--Staberinde (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sweden did nothing to stop the "volunteers". I have provided the Dominican Case to show how a truly neutral power acts. Additionally Sweden provided troops passage for Nazi Germany, and gave ample supplies to Nazi Germany. This is already proven and cited in this very article. When you are heavily favoring one side with supplies, "volunteers" and letting them run their supply lines through your country, you are not neutral. Under the Vietnam War Cambodia did everything Sweden did, and they are listed as a belligerent, and no one had to provide information about official government involvement. Clearly, according to your logic, the US was never involved in the Bay of Pigs, as it wasn't "officially sanctioned". And there was no Iran-Contra Scandal either, eh?

As per the Winter War and the Siege of Leningrad: you do know that the primary reason for the Winter War was to prevent Leningrad from being threatened, right? Was the primary reason for Operation Barbarossa to prevent Berlin from being threatened? If it is, please argue that. If it wasn't - your analogy fails. Again, the primary reason for the Winter War was to keep the Finns out of Leningrad, as the Finnish border was too close to the city, and it was feared, that if a war broke out, the Finns can help the Nazis encircle the city. This is exactly what happened. Why is this so complicated to understand? Where am I not explaining correctly, because I do want to improve my explanation skills, so please tell me where I am poorly explaining the issue? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to believe, because at 1939 Finns were quite anti-nazis and Finns were not loved by nazis either due the racial grounds. It was Stalin and his government which managed to do almost everything to guarantee that Finns would join Germany in Barbarossa. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy. --Whiskey (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So according to you, if another government attacks your country, it's ok to starve its civilians to death? The Finns were quite eager to assist Nazis at the Siege of Leningrad which is frankly one of the few darkspots of Finnish history, but it is a darkspot nonetheless and should be mentioned. The USSR Government notified Finland before the Winter War, giving them enough time to evacuate civilians. The Finns didn't let USSR evacuate civilians from Leningrad. Under 1,000 Finnish civilians died in the Winter War. Over 1,000,000 Soviet civilians are not accounted for as a result of the Siege of Leningrad. There's a fine line here and it's been crossed. And your claim that Russia's actions in the Winter War caused Finns to jump to the Nazi side is rather silly. Austria joined Nazi Germany too, and they weren't attacked by the USSR. Albania joined Nazi Germany to receive Kosovo. If the Finns just took back their concessions from the Winter War, fine, but I don't recall Leningrad ever being a Finnish city. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How about another government not attacking your country, it's ok to starve its civilians to death, as USSR tried to do winter 1941 when it cut all grain deliveries to Finland? And if you bother to dig a bit deeper, you'll see that Finns were very unwilling to participate to the Siege of Leningrad, repeatedly refusing to put pressure to the city so angering AGN and allowing LF to transfer badly needed troops against the Germans. What kind of notification do you mean? USSR attacked in the Winter War without a declaration of war, it even claimed internationally that it was not at war at all; the relationship with Finnish government was warm and several treaties were signed.

Your claim about silliness shows your lack of knowledge on the issue. It is ridiculous to claim that Albania, being occupied by fascist Italy and lead by the king of Italy, had anything to say about joining Germany; at the time it was nothing more than a puppet of Mussolini. Austrians were German-speaking, with a long connection through Holy Roman Empire to other states of Germany and bent to Großdeutsche Lösung.

Finns just took back their concessions, and they never wanted to have Leningrad. I really recommend you to read more about the policy Stalin and his government directed towards Finland 1939-1941.--Whiskey (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm, did I say anything about Albania joining Germany? I said Albania joined the Nazi movement and received Kosovo as a reward. I never stated anything about Albanian-Italian relations, so please don't place words into my mouth. Finns didn't "just take back their concessions" as they surrounded Leningrad, which was never a Finnish city. And yet you call me ignorant, while you claim that Finns just took back their concessions, right... is that why they were blocking the railroad north of Leningrad, preventing supplies from entering a starving city? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It really looked so: "Albania joined Nazi Germany to receive Kosovo." Hmmm... It still looks so. How could I put words to your mouth when you write the stuff yourself only few lines above? Albania didn't join anything as it was occupied by Italy at the time. Finns didn't surround Leningrad, as they were only at the Karelian Isthmus which was Finnish territory before the Winter War. Tell me why Finns should allow supply transports though it's terrain to the enemy it is fighting, as the railroad was on the Finnish pre-Winter War soil? --Whiskey (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Albania received Kosovo as a result of joining Nazi Germany. That's just a fact, irrespective of how it looks. The Finns blocked a railway, going through USSR. They also surrounded Leningrad from the North. The only way through was through Lake Ladoga, the Road of Life. See this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Part_north_region_Operation_Barbarossa.png Notice the arrow leading to Lake Ladoga? I don't recall Finnish territory stretching all the way to Lake Ladoga. Ever. Also, I think this sentence summarizes your views very well, it's your own, so I'll requote, and explain why these views are wrong: Tell me why Finns should allow supply transports though it's terrain to the enemy it is fighting, as the railroad was on the Finnish pre-Winter War soil?

I was not aware that the starving women and children of Leningrad were Finnish enemies. Thank you for informing me of that. I just never would view food and water being delivered to women and children as "supplying the enemy". That logic is so barbaric, that it ranks on par with those who argued that women and children of a defeated tribe should be massacred, because they might grow up to be fighters. That logic leads to eternal warfare. We aren't talking about army supplies; we are talking about US provided food and water supplies. The Russians were evacuating people from Leningrad, en mass. As much as a third to a fourth of the population was evacuated, and the majority of the remaining population died. If we see the starving children of one another as enemies, then we have truly lost our humanity, and with the new weaponry available, my heart worries about what the human race can do to itself. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See this map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Finnish_areas_ceded_in_1940.png Ever? You are sounding more and more like a troll. Is not allowing supply to the enemy more barbaric than trying to starve neutral country to submission, as Stalin tried to do to Finland at February 1941? --Whiskey (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Ad Hominem? Against me? I should start a compilation. Trolls usually give Ad Hominems, not receive Ad Hominems... Stalin tried to starve Finland into submission? Really? Wow, now you are just making up facts. Got any reasonable sources? It is sad to watch someone justify starving children because they happened to be on the other side of the conflict... HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, back to my original point: Cambodia in the Vietnam War acted in the same exact manner as Sweden in WWII. Yet Cambodia is listed as a belligerent in the Vietnam War, while Sweden is listed as a "neutral" country. Are Swedes just naturally superior to Cambodians? Cause if not, one of these has to be changed, in order to be consistent. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania/Finland - USSR's rationale

I think that it's important to point out USSR's rationale in these cases, irrespective of whether we agree with it or not. Stalin viewed the Baltic States, Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania, as former Russian territories, which were signed away by Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, a treaty that no one honored, and one that the Germans were the first to break. The Baltic States have been independent as a result of said treaty. As per the Finnish case, the USSR was worried about the Finnish threat to Leningrad, which later turned out to be correct, see Siege of Leningrad, and only wanted to conquer the areas around Leningrad, such as Vyborg. As a result of the war, the Russians took parts of Lapland as well. Additionally, Finland was a Duchy within Russia pre-WWI, was also signed away in Brest-Litovsk treaty, which no one honored. I think that it's important to point out the rationale, as to why USSR acted the way it did. Despite the rationale, I disagree with Stalin's actions, but it should be upto the reader to decide whether he or she agrees with said actions or not. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One sentence which would mention that Stalin wanted to reclaim territories lost as result of World War I and Russian Civil War(+related conflicts) probably wouldn't hurt. But at same time considering how short sections are here getting too much into details would be problematical. Btw, nobody cared about Brest-Litovsk after November 1918, independence of Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was established later by separate peace treaties between those countries and Soviet Russia.--Staberinde (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Should probably mention that the government of the USSR that signed these treaties was later couped. Additionally, it was Brest-Litvosk that granted these countries their independence. Without it, the recognition these countries received from Western Europe would be illegal, as you cannot recognize an entity that doesn't meet the Montevideo Convention. It's not just about Stalin wanting to reclaim lost territories, but also Stalin wishing to fortify the USSR from an invader coming from Europe, someone like Hitler. You are trying to simplify it. And USSR is a special case, so it can go a bit longer. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn! Nobody has told me that Lenin was couped! Poor Lenin! First he signed Finnish independence at December 1917 and later his government signed the Tartu peace treaty with Finland at 1920. Could you please tell me more about this coup? --Whiskey (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lenin signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk? And Lenin signed the Tartu Peace Treaty? Damn, why don't I see his name on those? I thought when you sign, you actually have to put your name, or at the very least an "X" mark on a treaty. Is there another way of signing that I am not aware of? The delegation to Brest-Litovsk was led by Trotsky. The signer of the Tartu Treaty was Adolph Joffe, a loyal Trostky supporter. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but there was a war between Stalin and Trotsky, where Stalin couped Trotsky and had him murdered with an Ice Pick in Mexico in 1940. When Trostky was couped, Joffe committed suicide. So yes, the government that signed the treaties, led by Trotsky, was couped. You can of course argue that Lenin signed the treaty, but ya kinda need his signature for that. Or his "X" mark. And before anyone argues that Trotsky signed on Lenin's orders, they need to be reminded that Lenin, when he told Trostky to sign the treaty, stated that "the treaty won't matter, because Communism will prevail and we will get our lands back" - or something along those lines. Additionally Lenin did not want Stalin to be his successor, so Stalin coming to power would in fact be a coup of the Lenin government, but not of Lenin himself, as it took place after Lenin's death. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lenin signed the Finnish independence, and his government signed the Tartu treaty. Stalin's rise to the power hardly counts as a coup, unless you claim it legal that Lenin was allowed to choose his successor. I haven't read any research about the Soviet government which contains such a claim. Your view about treaties is interesting, but I doubt it gains support from international law experts, not even those of that time. Also, it is very peculiar, if the Soviet view to the treaties were such as you described, then how it is possible that Soviet histography had made so extensive lists of the treaties others had broken to the damage of SU? So, I don't think your view has very wide acceptance among the researchers. --Whiskey (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm, yes, do tell, which International Legal Experts were present in 1917-1922 and dealt with Revolutionary Republics. It's funny how you compare me to International Legal Experts, but in reality you just hide that, which is your opinion under "International Legal Experts". Nice try. Trosky's emissary signed the treaty. Lenin's signature is NOT on the treaty, no matter how badly you want his signature to be on the treaty, it's just not there. Lenin also stated that he wasn't going to honor the treaty signed by Trotsky, because, according to Lenin, Communism will rise, and the World will be joined as one by Communism, irrespective of national boundaries. Perhaps you can find where Lenin ordered Trotsky to sign the treaty, the original document? And even if such an order existed, Lenin was pretty explicit in not honoring the treaty. Trotsky, through an emissary, signed the treaty. Trotsky was couped by Stalin. Lenin was dead at the time, which makes couping him impossible.

As to your second question, which is completely unrelated to the issue at hand, "how if the Soviet view to the treaties were such as you described, then how it is possible that Soviet histography had made so extensive lists of the treaties others had broken to the damage of SU? So, I don't think your view has very wide acceptance among the researchers." First, what researchers? Do you know of any legal experts dealing with treaties signed by Revolutionary Republics in 1917-1922? You are just taking your words, and trying to make them appear valid, by stating that your opinions are those of some legal experts, not a single one of whom you could name, and then you go ahead and state that my views are incompatible with the researchers, whom you also refuse to name. Were these Marsian researchers? Were these researchers drunks? Who are these people you are making up? Because in 1917-1922, there were very few researchers dealing with these issues, because these cases were extremely rare. And you've yet to mention any of these researchers, so they could be a figment of your imagination!

If someone breaks a treaty with you, ensuring that you know that they broke the treaty, and thus not signing any treaties with them, is a good thing, irrespective of your views on anything. If you see a constant backstabber, you want to avoid him or her, irrespective of whether you broke a treaty after a coup, or not. There is no correlation between the two. You may be a good driver or a bad driver, but you want to know who is a horrific driver, so that you stay away from him or her. This is just commons sense 101, employed by every reasonable government. If you have a guest who constantly steals your jewels, you stop inviting him. There really is no connection between this act, and any other acts you might do. What's next, you going to blame Russia for building their military, when a war is on the horizon? Common sense actions, such as making a list of treaty breakers, stand on their own, and shouldn't be tied to other acts. It's just plain sneaky to take a common sense action, and pretend it's a valid comparison to a unique situation. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, that connection between Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and Montevideo Convention makes no sense. Nobody cared about Brest-Litovsk after November 1918. Borders between Soviet Russia and new independent states were all established in separate peace treaties after some more or less serious fighting. For example Ukraine that Russia had also lost as result of Brest-Litovsk was actually recaptured. Also treaties don't become void simply due some intra-party infighting. Only thing that matters is that person signing treaty had credentials to do it from appropriate authorities. In this case, anyone signing treaty at name of Soviet Russia obviously had been given right to sign such treaty by Soviet government (Lenin and co.), otherwise nobody would had even bothered to negotiate with such person in first place.--Staberinde (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

When a government is couped, the next government may very well break a few treaties. When the Government of Tsar Paul the I was couped, and Tsar Alexander took power, the British had no trouble with Russia breaking a couple of treaties, because they benefited the British. When Stalin did the exact same thing to Trotsky and Co, (do try to remember that Lenin was dead at the time, and hence could not participate,) suddenly there is a cry of foul play. I mean heck, when Tsarina Catherine II died, and Tsar Paul took over, again you have treaties being broken. Prior to the establishment of the United Nations, treaties were made and broken on a daily basis, by all countries. When the signing was made, people knew about the possibility of it being broken.

As per the argument that just because someone signed the treaty they had the governments' authority to do so, well that's just about the silliest thing I heard. You have to have authority before you sign the treaty. You cannot claim authority, as a result of having signed the treaty, as you must have authority, before the act, and you cannot gain authority due to the result of the act, because you must have had it before the result! I cannot steal something from a store and claim it's rightfully mine because I stole it!

As per your argument that treaties don't become void due to party infighting - well that's true. However we are talking about a coup here, not just inter-party infighting, so that comparison is entirely irrelevant. When you signed a treaty with a government that's been in power for less then a decade, and came to power as a result of a violent revolution, when said government was sent to Russia by a foreign power to fake a treaty, and you sign with that government, and it gets couped, do you really expect the treaty to be honored? And if all governments must honor their treaties, well than the British involvement in the Crimean War was illegal, as the British promised, to get the Russians to fight Napoleon, that "not a single British soldier will set foot on Russian soil".

You seem to be confusing two distinct time periods, namely the pre-WWII period with the post-WWII period. In the former, treaties were generally viewed as temporary, and were often broken. With the establishment of the UN, that changed. But you cannot hold Russia accountable for the establishment of the UN in 1939, when the UN was established in 1945! You cannot be breaking a future law, because you do not know it exists. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how all this is in any way related to original argument Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, or even what changes are you suggesting to article.--Staberinde (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually explaining USSR's rationale, instead of just blindly making it look like Stalin signed with Hitler for no reason but to conquer poor, poor countries. There was logic and reasoning behind it; yes it was wrong, but hindsight is 20/20 and the reader should have all the facts. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Citations

Some of the citations I am seeing posit problems. Usually one should look at a citation, and be able to instantly find the source cited. Here are examples of what's a good citation:

Cohen, Sasha, Autobiography, p. 33 Brown, Dan, Da Vinci Code, p. 133 Working internet link to credible website

Here are examples of poor citations:

Cohen, P. 33 Brown, P. 133 Dead internet link

In the first case, the reader can instantly find what the heck the author is talking about. In the second case, the reader has no idea. Which Cohen? Which Brown? Which work by Cohen/Brown? The poor citation examples are just as useful as dead internet links. In other words, they are useless.

When a citation is useless, we have two options: make it useful by citing the citation better, or delete it, and the associated text. Below is a list of citations that must be improved or deleted, from the article; please assist in improving and/or deleting them.

The Roberts links need to be fixed. Fay, 1993. (Needs first name or initial and book name.) Andren, 1996. (Needs first name or initial and book name.)

Thank you in advance for improving the article, HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Harmony Boys Image Problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Low-the-harmony-boys.jpg

The author claims that the copyright has expired, because the copyright is the author's life + 70 years. David Low died in 1963, and adding 70 years to that would yield 2033. From the image:

"This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.

This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years."

So that yields a date of 2033. Not 2009. Thus the image should be deleted, as the copyright has not expired. When the copyright expires in 2033, we should definitely reconsider its addition. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Norway

it is really easy to belive that Norway was a suporter of Nazi-germany. There is no section abouth Norway, and the map dosent help much

The reason there is no section on Norway is because Norway in no way was a supporter of Nazi Germany. Norway was neutral until it was invaded by German forces in April 1940, after which it joined the Allies and defended itself against the Germans until mainland Norway was fully occupied in June. After this, Norway was under occupation, but the legitimate government in exile always considered Norway to be an Ally under enemy occupation. The Germans never attempted to create an Axis puppet state in Norway either (as they did in Greece, Croatia, Slovakia and several other occupied countries, as this article will tell you), they merely occupied the country. Norwegian collaborators existed, of course, there were plenty of them, but that does not make Norway more of an Axis powers than other Axis-occupied states with legitimate governments in exile, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, etc. So despite how easy you might think it is to believe Norway supported Nazi Germany, it has nothing to do with reality and has no place in this article or on the map. 96T (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the map caption slightly to make it clear that it shows the extent of occupied territory. It's a good map, but we could do with a more sophisticated one.Macguba (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

But the reality is that a puppet government under Norweigian Fascist leader Quisling did existed during the German occupation. The puppet regime never become a formal member of the Axis, but it was a puppet state established by Nazi Germany, making it accountable as a Germany-sponsored puppet government in this article.

As for the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, all three were simply occupied without establishment of local puppet regimes, aside from some semi-autonomous institutes raised from local fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niobium101 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Quisling regime had zero autonomy, and thus does not count. Quisling is already dealt with over at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Manxruler (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It should at least get a mention, if only because of what the name of its leader has come to symbolize. The collaborationist greek government didn't have any autonomy either, and it has its section. And the Italian-created independent Montenegro didn't even have a proper government for most of the war, yet it also has its section. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Puppet sections

I have added an additional title/heading to the sections as "pro-German". I do not see how Slovakia, which made many independent decisions, was any less of a puppet than Vichy France or Finland. I would argue that neither country was a puppet state, actually.--88.73.243.133 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Other" instead of "Co-Belligerents"

"co-belligerents" is such a bullshit propaganda phrase that is recycled from the days when the Allies used it to create a moral appeal as to who was fighting in defense and who was not, who was good and who was not. Its purpose is clear - to suggest that anyone who is against the Allies is somehow the aggressor. This means Finland, which the Soviet Union originally invaded, was somehow "belligerent" by resisting and later helping the Germans. I denounce the use of this phrase and anything that creates a conflated image of a black and white world of good and bad and further perpetuates half-truths that make people act emotionally rather than logically when, for example, someone uses the phrase "Axis of Evil".--88.73.243.133 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the point. Why isn't Vichy France put as a german puppet state? Slovakia, Serbia, Italy, Albania, Hungary and Vardar Macedonia are like Vichy: some collaborator states which had been "enslaved" by Nazi Germany. No one state was free to choose if he helped or not. So I cannot understand why there would be a difference. As Pétain and his governement had only limited actual powers (especially after 1942) and all the main decisions were taken by the german Military Administration, this would be easier and right to gather them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.220.205 (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Because there is this thing called Western Bias, that predominates in English speaking countries. Go ahead and add Vichy France, but use citations as you do so. They shouldn't too difficult to find. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

I removed the whole subsection about Yugoslavia from the Minor powers section. Yugoslavia was simply never a minor or any other kind of Axis power. The government signed the pact on 25 March 1941, two days later there was a coup that brought down the government, and ten days after the coup the Axis invaded. Yugoslav government (first royal, then national unity) was recognized as an Allied government throughout Yugoslavia's involvement in WWII.

The information about signing of the pact and the coup should be worked into the article somehow, but not under the "Minor powers" heading. OTOH, the detailed information about partisans vs. chetniks does not belong in this article at all. Zocky | picture popups 00:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize its a technicality, but Yugoslavia did sign the pact, and the new post-coup government did not dare actually annul the agreement. There is simply no way to incorporate all this info into the article except in this form, we'd have to create a special section... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The signing is already described in the Tripartite Pact, maybe a part of it can be worked into this article. But as I understand it (and the article states), Axis powers were those countries who fought against the allies during WWII, regardless of whether they signed the pact or not (I suspect many of the described puppet states were never even asked). For the same reason, Spain and USSR, neither of which ever fought against the Allies, shouldn't be included in this article either. Zocky | picture popups 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article simply lists states that can, in any capacity, be thought of as members of the Axis. Yugoslavia is one of them, the matter is well explained in the section (in my opinion). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it specifically says, and I quote, The Axis powers (also known as the Axis alliance, Axis nations, Axis countries, or just the Axis) were those countries that were opposed to the Allies during World War II. Yugoslavia, USSR and Spain weren't opposed to the Allies in WWII, which clearly disqualifies them from the list. Iff we could get the definition to say Axis powers were states that can, in any capacity, be thought of as members of the Axis, then listing these states would be possibly be appropriate. Zocky | picture popups 00:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it "says", but that's clearly not the sole subject of the article. Besides, as a state that signed the pact, Yugoslavia was opposed to the Allies for a couple of days.

The USSR did technically fight against the Allies. Poland was an Allied state that was invaded by the USSR in agreement with Germany. Now, I know this is a technicality, and that the USSR was basically the state that destroyed the Axis but this just shows that if the USSR can be found here, so can Yugoslavia. (Spain also fought against the USSR, an Allied state at the time.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The USSR didn't fight against allies, it fought against Poland. The allies never went to war against USSR nor vice versa. Again, we have the article Tripartite Pact where the signatories of the fact are discussed in detail. Listing USSR, Spain and Yugoslavia in this article is both unnecessary and misleading. Zocky | picture popups 21:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Any statements sourced from the book by Phillip Cohen should be stricken, that is, only if you want this page to be free of cheap propaganda. Anybody with a brain and a pair of eyes can skim the first page of that garbage on Amazon. Nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmilenko (talk • contribs) 00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ljotic's solders (SVC,ZBOR) (who were German allies), were involved in killing Croats and Muslims (who were also German allies)...How is that possible? Why would Germans let SVC (who were, btw, only operating in Nedic's Serbia where there are no Croats and almost no Muslims (Bosniaks)!) to kill people whose government is their ally since 1930s??? Just think! I am no way a supporter of Serbian fascist, I just want to point out some non-logical, and probably false facts...--Vule91 (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Vule91 you just want to believe that all Serbs were completely innocent in history. Well, I don't believe that you think logical. Serbia was Hitler ally too. So why would Croats kill all those Serbs? Why Serbs killed Croats? Answer is simple. Hate from WW1 and a wish for ethnically clean state. Well, anyway that's my POV, you asked for it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.251.136 (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How does inserting Chamberlain fail "NPOV"?

In 1938, the USSR offered to defend Czechoslovakia, and offered to create an anti-Nazi alliance in Europe. Neville Chamberlain did everything in his power to prevent the creation of such an alliance, including flying to Nazi Germany, twice! After the UK, due to Chamberlain's actions refused an alliance with the USSR, and AFTER Hitler offered the USSR an alliance, Stalin signed. Instead, according to some mystic version of "NPOV", we are supposed to pretend that Stalin and Hitler signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact "out of the blue". How exactly does mentioning basic facts, violate NPOV? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You should actually read whole section (especially as it isn't very long in this case) before you start editing it. You talk about 1938 but that is actually in previous paragraph, not in the one you edited. Whole betrayal of Czechoslovakia is already mentioned in previous paragraph. The paragraph you edited speaks about talks that took place in 1939 both between Brits/French and Soviets, and between Germans and Soviets. Your wording places whole blame of the failure about tripartite talks on Brits, and that is about as neutral as: "After pressing demands that Western Allies could not accept Stalin made pact with Hitler about dividing Eastern-Europe." would be.--Staberinde (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to read my mind, or to pretend to know whether I read the previous section or not. Only I know whether I read the section or not, and you cannot possibly know that. Unless you are a mind-reader. So please don't say "you should actually read whole section" because that implies that I did not read it, when in fact I read it. That's original research on your part, and I can assure you, that in this case it is dead wrong original research. And yes, it's mentioned, in passing, in the previous paragraph, and I clarified it. Stalin's demand was that Czechoslovakia be defended, or at least that the Western Allies would try to defend it, with more than three divisions. I don't see what is so pressing about that. When you have to make up a fact to support your argument, you argument fails. Analogies must be real; they cannot come from the land of fantasy. I have no problem with you linking the Tripartite Pact to this article, so you too, can clarify. What I have a problem with, is that you are trying to avoid my clarification, and in doing so, try to make me look like a POV Warrior. That's not very nice. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I totally did not talk about Tripartite Pact but about tripartite talks between USSR-UK-France that took place in 1939. This paragraph you edited talks about negotiations in 1939, and that should be obvious from first sentence of paragraph, unless you are claiming that Stalin was actively negotiating with Hitler already before Munich. Anything about 1938 and Czechoslovakia would go into previous paragraph, currently your edit essentially claims that USSR-UK-France negotiations in 1939 failed due British, which totally fails NPOV.--Staberinde (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm, they did fail due to the British actions of 1938. You are trying to make it look like the events are unconnected, when there's an indisputable connection between them. Had the British agreed to the Soviet Proposals of 1938, there is no way that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact would be signed, as USSR would be at war with Nazi Germany! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The map shows the Axis powers wrong. Finland was not a part of the Axis, as also the Allied leaders concluded in Tehran

Following the Winter War, Finland had prepared for a continued Soviet aggression and a defensive campaign - not offensive -, as the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim has pointed out in his memoirs.

Accordingly, the Continuation War which started with the Soviet invasion of Finland on June 25, 1941, was not a part of the German campaign against the Soviets, as also the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, on December 1, 1943, correctly concluded.

Together with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin acknowledged in the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, ending on December 1, 1943, that the Finnish-Soviet Continuation War was a separate war - not a part of the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied powers.

Finland was also not a signee of the Tripartite Pact, at any point. Thus the map showing the Axis powers in the top right corner of this article is misleading in this regard. Accordingly, it needs to be removed. It can be replaced by a similar map which will show the correct state of the Axis powers during WW2.

Finland did participate in certain level of co-operation with Germany during WW2, and particularly in the summer of 1944 weapons purchased from Germany were of great help to Finland. However - again -, Finland was not a member of the Axis powers.

Due to the separate nature of the own struggle, the Finns refused to cooperate with the Nazis in many critical areas, such as:

1) - - signing the Tripartite Pact, also called the Axis Pact, which established the Axis Powers of World War II (despite of many requests from the Nazi-Germany);

2) - - allowing direct German attacks from the Finnish soil against the Soviet Union during the Interim Peace period;

3) - - accepting the approximately 80 000 German troops offered to be placed under command of Marshal Mannerheim;

4) - - attacking the Soviet Union, unless/until the Soviet Union would attack Finland first;

5) - - cooperating in the siege of Leningrad;

6) - - cutting the Allied "lifeline", which was operated over Lake Ladoga and which brought desperately needed supplies to the defenders of Leningrad;

7) - - cutting the Murmansk railroad, which delivered massive amounts of Allied weapons and other supplies to the Soviets;

8) - - attacking the same targets as the Germans;

9) - - handing Finnish Jews to the Nazis (The Finnish Jews participated in the Finnish war efforts just like all other Finnish citizens);

10) - declaring war against any other Allied countries except Soviet Union, ... etc.

The current President of Finland Tarja Halonen has reminded of the war-time Finnish policy which secured the operation of the Allied "lifeline" of help over Lake Ladoga, helping to save Leningrad from the Nazi occupation.

By not participating in the siege of Leningrad - alone -, the Finns prohibited a huge strategic and moral victory from the Nazis.

Being the highest leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin knew in detail what the Soviet intentions regarding Finland were. He knew exactly what had taken place, and why.

Accordingly, - in the Tehran Conference the Allied leaders determined that Finland was fighting a separate war against the Soviet Union - not the same as the one between Germany and the Soviet Union -, and that it was not 'de jure' member of the Axis, and therefore Finland could also get out of the war through negotiations and separate peace agreement.

Thus, the separate peace agreement was granted to Finland and the Continuation War's aftermath was dealt under a separate, conditional peace treaty. The Nazis were forced into a treaty of their own. It was unconditional and meant total surrender.

Unlike Nazi leaders, many of whom were sentenced to death, the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim had advanced to become the President of Finland on August 4, 1944, continuing in office until March 4, 1946, when he resigned and retired - 19 months after the ending of the Continuation War. 87.93.87.52 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fascinatingly incorrect argumentation. Just because someone was not tried for war crimes, does not mean that they did not cooperate with Nazi Germany. Romania cooperated with Nazi Germany, initially and to save itself from utter destruction. However there was cooperation, yet no Romanians were tried. The reason that Mannerheim was not tried, was because he did not commit atrocities that Hitler committed. Know of any Gas Chambers and mass graves in Helsinki? Didn't think so.

However, if you cooperated with Nazi Germany, irrespective of the reason, you were part of the Axis, irrespective of the De Jure/De Facto distinction. The USSR was De Jure neutral during the Vietnam War and yet they still fought.

The main sin of the Finnish forces and Swedish "volunteers" was the Siege of Leningrad. Stalin, whom you are citing, also considered the Japanese Front, another front. Yet Japan is still listed under the Axis, although it was too, agreed at Teheran, by politicians, that Japanese War was a separate one. So if you remove Finland, the same argumentation applies to Japan.

Additionally, your 10 points are incorrect, as the Finns cooperated fully in the Siege of Leningrad. For instance, the Finns would not allow American food convoys to enter Leningrad. That is cooperation in a siege. The whole idea of a siege, is to, and let's not sugar-coat it here, the idea of a siege is to starve the city into surrendering. The Finns were 100 percent complicit in that, when they blocked the railroad, and prevented the delivery of American food supplies. The US prevented the entire Red Army from suffering malnutrition, I am sure they could have managed to do the same to Leningrad. (On a historical note, the Red Army were thankful for the food, but were unnerved about the Allies not opening the second front, so the US food packages were dubbed the "Second Front".)

If all of your 10 points are correct, you would be correct. However to claim that the Finns did not participate in the Siege of Leningrad, is to lie. Thus the map should stay. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Image size needs reduction

Hello! I am looking up various articles and the first shown image is not shown due to too many pixels. If anyone could reduce the image size, or replace the image, it would be appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.131.189 (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The source image itself isn't the problem. wikimedia commons appears to be having some issues. Hopefully they will fix it soon. (Hohum ^@) 22:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

USSR as Co-belligerent ?

The Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 took place in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet Pact, as did the WW2 Soviet occupations of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, plus parts of Romania and Finland. According to several historians (e.g. Timothy Snyder, Laurence Rees) USSR was an Axis co-belligerent 1939-1941. This should be added, including any controversy or counter-views for WP:NPOV. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Iraq was never a 'co-belligerent' of the Axis

Even under Rashid Ali's brief rule as Prime Minister, Iraq was not allied to the Axis powers, nor did it declare war against the Allies. Britain declared war against Iraq. Iraq never declared war against any other ally. There was contact between Iraq and Germany, and there was a token intervention by the German air force when the RAF sought to overthrow the Rashid Ali government. There was a lot of propaganda at the time that sought to paint the restive Iraqi population as just symptomatic of Hitler's fifth column, but that is not to be taken too seriously.

These are some references: Fieldhouse, Western Imperialism in the Middle East, Oxford University Press, 2006 Walid S. Hamdi Rashid ‘Ali Al Gailani and the Nationalist Movement in Iraq, Darf Publishers, London, 1987

I propose that this material ought not to be here under the section 'Axis Powers', and ought to be deleted, or moved. Heartfield01 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Iraq shouldn't be over-emphasised, certainly not presented as an Axis power. But to my mind, the Rashid Ali regime is worth a small subsection here as "Axis-aligned", with the caveats you have included. More information is better than less information. We can say the Rashid Ali regime was never a member of the Axis, but it did fight against the British with Nazi and Vichy help, during WW2. It might be worth including context, such as why the Rashid Ali regime had grass-roots support against the British in the first place. By the way, Iraq is in the Infobox at World War Two, where I've pointed out Vichy is omitted. Personally I'd say Iraq should stay at WW2 infobox and Vichy should be added. If Iraq then fought with the Allies against the Nazis, it should also be on the allied side of the WW2 infobox, with dates. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Per my edit sum, please also see WP:SILENT. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Germany section needs some touching up

The language is a bit clumsy. Also, Kursk and Stalingrad were not the only crushing defeats of 1943; the Battle of Tunisia cost the Germans nearly a quarter of a million men and should perhaps be mentioned as well. Yaush (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Map is a poor descriptive image for the subject matter

The Map image is merely a static thumbnail of an animated timeline GIF. This could be marginally clarified by adding a "(as of September 1939)" caveat to the "Axis Powers" color key label below.

This thumbnail is misleading in that it shows the frame with an unreadable label "09/1939" which is not one of the 4 "Historical Era" timeline points (Anti-Comintern Pact - Nov 25, 1936; Pact of Steel - May 22, 1939; Tripartite Pact Sep 26, 1940; Dissolved - 1945) in the table enclosing the thumbnail.

The GIF animation does not even specifically illustrate any of those specific timeline points. That 26 frame animated GIF is described as illustrating the evolution of the AXIS powers from September 1939 through September 1945 at 3 month intervals.

In addition, confusion arises from the color key only describing 1 (which is the least prevalent) of the 5 colors in use for that frame.

The thumbnail (which only shows the initial rather than the most representative frame of the animation) is a linked to a another page which links to the actual animation. (Note that when the animated GIF is playing, the full color key is not accessible.) The reader is at least 2 clicks away from meaningful interpretation of the data. (More if they have to click back and forth to correlate the full color key to the evolving timeline.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.101.143 (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The map here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_II_alliances_animated_map.gif screams bias. The Axis powers should have a more neutral color instead of red that indicates a daragatory connotation. The image was obviously created by a Allies country member as the allies is in Green. Try using blue or purple instead of red. Honestly the image is heavily color biased.

130.49.142.155 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

<noinclude> code appearing at the end of the text

Hallo everyone,

it seems like there is a <noinclude> wikisoftware code at the end of the article.

It must belong to some template that is not on the text page code.

I am working on fixing the problem... but didn't achieve much.

Help would be deeply appreciated.

Thanks.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Spain: Expansionist versus irredentist

I changed the description of Falangist territorial ambitions from expansionist to irredentist because the territories mentioned, except possibly some of those in Africa, were former Spanish territories. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but it seems like a better choice of word. If it gives anyone heartburn, please discuss it here. Yaush (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What about for the European territory it's "irredentist" and for the Africa and other territorial ambitions it's "expansionist" or "imperialist" ? --184.77.10.72 (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland

IMHO, this should be in the conversational section, because while it was officially neutral and it's air force engaged both allies and axis forces that violated it's territory, as well as being a safe haven for jews as far as I know, it was a client of the Nazi's as it did keep many of their solden assents and was accidently bombed by the Allies.--184.77.10.72 (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor Participant Sector confusing

Can anyone tell me why there should be such a sector? Most of the nations covered are classified based on the legal nature of their participation, the formal Axis nations, the co-belligerents, the puppet states etc., while this sector alone is based on the size of their participation/contribution, which is both confusing and inconsistent with the rest. The three members mentioned can be shown in other groups as: Yugoslavia, an Axis state though for an extremely limited period; San Marino, a co-belligerent no matter how small it is; Free India, simply another Japanese puppet regime.223.255.231.6 (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Albania

I think that the Kingdom of Albania should be added as an Italian puppet state. It had its formally independent govern and declared war on UK and France on 16 June 1940. Its troops took part to the attack on Greece, then to the defence from Yugoslav invasion and to the suppression of partizan rebellions in Montenegro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.249.5.111 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There are many puppet states and governments missing from the current list. 202.129.187.100 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Mess around territories caded from Czechoslovakia to Hungary

'Hungarians received favourable territorial settlements in the form of territory from German annexed Czechoslovakia in 1939 and Northern Transylvania from Romania in the Vienna Awards of 1940.'

This sentence suggests that these territorial changes were after the annexation of Czechoslovakia, which is only partly true. First Vienna Dictate was in 2 November 1938, when the state still existed. However, its true that half year later, when Germany annexed the Czeh parts and Slovakia declared its independence, Hungary got further territories (Carpatho-Ukraine). Of course this shouldn't be detailed in this article (as there are other articles specialized for the subject), so I only suggest a little modification like this:

'Hungarians received favourable territorial settlements in the form of territory from Czechoslovakia in 1938-1939 and Northern Transylvania from Romania in the Vienna Awards of 1940.'

However, its still not exactly correct, as 1939 occupation of Carpatho-Ukraine wasnt according to Vienna Dictates. Maybe someone with better English can formulate the sentence better. I can't explain it short. --Zalab (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to the flags?

So the Allies of World War II get to display their flags, but the Axis don't? Double standards much?

118.100.72.216 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Persia

Persia was a Axis client state sinece by August 1941, Reza Shah refused to expel the German nationals or allowed Anglo-Soviet Trans-Iranian Railway, Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran, arrested the Shah and sent him into exile, taking control of Iran's communications and railroad.PA Dennison (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Croatia

Croatia was an axis state, but it's not marked on the map? 178.77.15.159 (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

File:WWII.png#Summary: "Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkey was never an allied country, but here it shows her as such. Please edit this. It joined two months before the war ended and never fought a single battle. al least add a colour with countries that nominaly declared war, but never actually fought a batlle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartacus Marat (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)