Talk:Tripartite Pact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For those who deny WWII was a single global war...[edit]

Why don't you take your arguments to the discussion pages of the actual Second World War article. I highly doubt claiming that WWII was two separate wars (aka: false historical revisionism) is going help the US regain the world's trust or whatever some claim. (Repdetect117 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Because this very article is promoting historical falsehoods, by definition and interpretation. There used to be dozens and dozens of posts debating the issue back and forth here, wikipedia has deleted all save the 2 summary posts declaring the article historically innaccurate. The Tripartite Pact is the core argument for the claim everyone should consider what we call ww2 as a single unified war.

Although Wikipedia has deleted all the defending arguments(and both sides used English historical sources by the way), one reason schoolboards like ours don't allow them to be used by students as a research source is because, as the other 2 here mention, they have proven the article incorrect as printed, yet refuse to remove or even flag it as historically innaccurate.

Revinionism is when Hearst's media empire convinced Americans for a century, that the Spanish started the Spanish-American War by torpedoing the Maine. Correction is when American historians concede that was 'yellow journalism' and a propagandic lie accepted a century as historical truth.

Another example of Revisionism was our claim that the Germans were wrong about the Lucitania carrying munitions and war-materials as cargo(a major argument for the US joining what we call WWI), when we also recently found that to be a lie as well.

If anything, the world will resent and mistrust us the LONGER we refuse to correct our own historical record.

I know I actually gained more respect for the likes of Colin Powell for resigning/refusing to continue with what our media/historians declared as historical fact of Iraq being behind 9/11 and possessing WMDs.

If anything, the more and quicker we admit to our own propaganda guised as historical fact, the sooner we'll regain or earn international respect.

As for those teachers online who've mentioned that when The Yale Project was asked to produce evidence of the original copy of the English version they claim as the actual titled "Axis Pact" including Japan an active military ally of Germany and Italy, they never did so for us either. Therefore they have been added to our list of 'unreliable sources' for students too.

AthabascaCree (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Then would you suggest WW2 be redefined as a period where two conflicts overlapped, or should the term be completely done away with? --Repdetect117

Absolutely. I would hope any ethical student of history would want a neutral unbiased account of international history over their own politically-biased version. Obviously that's why Wikipedia isn't considered an impartial source as hoped sadly either. Just look up The Vietnam War and contrary to most of the world's history, Wikipedia only lists the American aspect of the ongoing conflict over even that countries' own version of it's own history. Until more of you speak up for impartiality here, that's where it will remain.

You, America, or 'we' seem to have no problem identifying other conflicts as separate and distinct.

Does your American history claim that the US was part of even 'The Napoleonic Wars'?
Of course not, it became politically embarassing. Therefore, eventually, we agreed to separate it as 'The War of 1812' instead.
Numerous 'foreign' histories often include even 'The American Revolution' as part of the ongoing 'Anglo-French Wars' of the period, (again, it seems you have no problem with the 'separate war' concept here), which of course we 'anglos' don't include as an all-emcompassing single war because of later political reasons.

The others are correct, the majority of the world's population identify numerous distinct wars refusing to use our single, inaccurate but politically-flattering all-encompassing single conflict.

To focus on just one proof example, European history identifies Finland involved in 3 distinct wars during the same period.
The Winter War we could call The 1939-40 Russo-Finnish War.
The Continuation War we could call The 1941-44 Finno-Russian War.
The Lapland War we could call The 1944-45 Finno-Nazi War.

Even the former Soviet Republics and our former Allies in Taiwan agree that there were numerous distinct wars, often described as 'foreign interference' in the ongoing Chinese Civil War 1924-49. Korea to Indonesia even Mongolia today teach of numerous wars linked to their independence separate from our terminology.

Right there that's already the majority of the world's population disagreeing with our(let alone American) version of events as a single unified war, including those that were supposedly our allies.

The rest of the English-speaking world doesn't always agree with American accounts either. While Oxford lists over a dozen wars started by the US without declaration between 1903-1939, American history does not. So no, we do not consider American history to be 'the world's history'.

Even American historians have retracted their version of events to admit that the Spanish did not actually start the Spanish-American War by torpedoing the Maine, admitting that for over a century American history was the victim of 'yellow journalism' or propaganda by the Hearst media empire. Nations change their account of history all the time, usually based upon political prejudices.

So definately, eventhough I couldn't simply call myself a 'ww2 buff' anymore lol, as a teacher and ethical student of history, who's attended and taught the subject internationally, I would have everyone's(not just ours) 'nationalized' histories' corrected for impartial accuracy, yes.AthabascaCree (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. However, is World War Two an invalid term? (Repdetect117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

On a semi-related note; while European history mentions the Continuation War and Lapland War, during the time of the war in Europe, the Russians considered the so called "Continuation War" to be part of their Great Patriotic War (and still do). Also, the Germans the combat along the Russo-Finnish border to be part of their Eastern Front due to the fact their troops were present their. The term Lapland War was originated by Finland; the Germans considered their retreat from Finland to be part of the general retreat of their forces from the arctic (northern regions of Finland and Norway). (Repdetect117 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

Article Remains Biased and Prejudiced[edit]

The article remains lacking in objectivity and neutrality of reporting.
a) The omission of "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" is an blatant sign of bias.
b) The omission of the "Pact of Steel" which Japan refused to join is another sign of bias.
c) The omission of the proven fact that the USSR was indeed invited to join the "Tripartite Pact" to make it "The Pact of Four" as Japan, Italy and the USSR wanted, took the negotiations seriously, and is, again, an obvious sign of prejudicial reporting.
d) As pointed out on the "Axis" pages as well, there has been NO authenticated original signed document in member languages proving the existance of any Pact joining Japan to Germany and Italy title "Axis".
e) The claim that the "Tripartite Pact" was the proper name of the "Axis Pact" was also disproved.
f) If the rule is supposed to be that if you cannot provide evidence of the actual document's existance, then it can not be used as a stated objective and neutral fact in the article. as those using Slavinsky who's book shows actual photographs of the signed documents in appropriate languages, that it should not be stated as evidence in fact in this article.
g) The article continues its bias by continuing to claim the "Tripartite Pact" supplemented the "Anti-Comintern Pact" when it was proven by sourced evidence that Tokyo dissolved the "Anti-Comintern Pact" with Germany's signing of the "Nazi-Soviet Pact" and never signed the "Pact of Steel" therefore cannot possibly have 'supplemented' eachother.
The article remains obviously biased and prejudiced retaining statements unproven even disproven not to mention major omission of Soviet invitation and "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" which has been proven.TheBalderdasher (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

wow where did you learn that, tavy 13:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oktawiusz (talkcontribs)


Like only a couple of others not deleted here, I also taught history, researched before that, now retired, lecturing still and researching just for my own interest anymore, sad huh?

Sadly whomever(i was told only the author or wikipedia editor could), deleted pages of we teacher's/researcher's posts,

someone had started what I thought was a brilliant adaptation specifically for such online forums,

where even i would rather go to the library or sneak a peek in a bookstore rather than buy every book sourced here

to prove to myself that the poster wasn't either making up the book and author,

or wasn't misquoting or 'selectively quoting' out of context,

so he or she started actually listing the chapter, page and paragraph(so I thought must be a teacher)

but outright quoting the entire paragraph word for word to prove they weren't taking it out of context

(which my secretary felt made them a librarian), either way, it was, in my opinion,

the best way for people without those books to go the the libraries or bookstores and confirm for themselves

without having to take out a mortgage to buy them all;)

so frustrating the author or wikipedia editor? deleted them all.

However, i did find an old print-out from those days, the best i can do for you is type out a dozen or so of the sources me and others listed,

hope it helps.

I now recall receiving a message here all those years ago, telling me I couldn't use non-English books/authors as sources,

so forgive me if i let one slip by

i am no linguist, but if there wasn't an english translation, our linguist departments would help translate for us,

though i would still argue it's wrong to use only books written in the victor language for the victor market

and claim your argument 'impartial' or 'factual'

(But in the end, I agree with the others I notice no longer participate in wikipedia, if wikipedia isn't going to delete unproven or proven wrong information

and stop authors from deleting those proving them wrong

then it is the joke Jon Daily and Stephen Colbert make it out to be

so sad, we had such high hopes for these, and so many schoolbooks remain so far behind the times)

"The Oxford Companion to WWII", 1995-2005, Oxford and New York

"Total War" The Causes and Courses of The Second World War, Calvocoressi, Wint and Pritchard, 2nd Ed 1995, Penguin Books(though you can tell some of the authors' missionary/anglo/american bias, alot of lies revealed)

"Myths and Legends of the Second World War" James Hayward, Sutton, 2004

"The Art of War in World History: From Antiquity to the Nuclear Age" Chaliand, 1994, California

"The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945", John Toland, 2003(Pulitzer Prize editions always cost more, try to find cheaper edition)

"Liddel Hart's History of the Second World War", Pan Books, 1979

"Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army", Merion and Susie Harries, Random House, 1991(admittedly a more culture gender focus, yet again, some lies revealed)

"But Not in Shame: the six months after pearl harbor", Toland, Random House, 1961

"The Winter War: The Soviet Attack on Finland 1939-1940", Engle & Paananen, Stackpole Books, 1992

"Infamy: Pearl Harbour and Its Aftermath", Toland, Berkley, 1982(I have the more shocking re-edited version published after the Secrecy Act Records release of 1993, co-authored by the head of the OSS at the time if I recall correctly, but not here, I remember it was sold out so long I had to buy my copy from a library;)

"How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: the fatal errors that led to the nazi defeat", Bevin Alexander, Three Rivers Press New York, 2000

"Atlas of World History", Oxford, Institute of Historical Research, University of London, 2002

"Atlas of Military Strategy", Chandler, Arms and Armour Press, London, Melbourne, 1980

"Korea's Place in the Sun", Cumings, W.W. Norton & Company, 2005

"Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII", Cornwell, Viking, 1999

"The Japanese War Machine", Mayer, Chartwell, 1989

"Japan: A reinterpretation", Patrick Smith, Harper Collins, 1997

"Raising the Red Banner: the pictorial history of stalin's fleet 1920-1945", Yakubov & Worth, 1998

"Third Reich Victorious: alternate decisions of world war ii", Tsouras, Ballantine, 2002

"Rising Sun Victorious: an alternate history of the pacific war"(note how he uses the Japanese, not our term) could have happened and nearly did", Tsouras, Ballantine, 2007

"Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters" Richard A. Clarke, Harper Collins, 2008

"The Forgotten War: Volume Two", Cohen, PH, 1990

"After the Reich: the brutal history of the allied occupation", MacDonogh, Basic Books, 2007

"The Allied Occupation of Japan", Eiji, Continuum, 2003

"Disaster at D-Day", Tsouras, GMP, 2004

"If the Allies Had Fallen", Showalter & Deutsch, 2010(shockingly American-biased, even Britain mal-represented, at least it shows how even hand-picked US-biased authors in the same book can make conflicting statements, it reads eerily like an assignment we got to break up into groups of 10 and write a biased history of any conflict from one nation's point of view using sources).

"Military Errors of World War Two", Macksey, Casswell Military, 1998

"Military Intelligence Blunders and Cover-Ups", Wilson, Robinson, 2004

"The Japanese-Soviet Friendship Neutrality Pact", Slavinsky/, 2005, (yes, the English translation, i suggest you try to find it in a library, extremely expensive, someone stole my 1st copy)

"Intelligence in War", Keegan, Vintage, 2002

"Day of Deceipt: the truth about FDR and pearl Harbor", Stinnet, FP, 2000

"The Battle for History", Keegan, Vintage, 2005

TheBalderdasher (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove This Article for Unsubstantiated and Disproven Statements[edit]

The above long debate has proven that the Tripartite Pact was NEVER activated.

Wikipedia is supposed to remove article statements that cannot be proven or have been dis-proven. Wikipedia is supposed to remove articles that are obviously not reporting on a topic in a neutral and objective manner.

The Tripartite Pact could only be invoked IF Article 3 was invoked, which it never was.

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

None of the members were attacked while the pact existed, in each case the members were the attackers. There are volumes of evidence provided above and Wikipedia STILL refuses to invoke its own rules.

5 months have gone by since contributors have proven by sourced historians that "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" not only existed and should have been described as far more related to "The Tripartite Pact" than the mentioned "Anti-Comintern Pact"(which was proven cancelled by Japan when Germany signed the 'Nazi-Soviet Pact') and "Pact of Steel"(which was proven that Japan never signed).

The reason the article refuses to mention "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" AFTER 5 MONTHS can only be because it is further proof that "The Tripartite Pact" was NEVER activated.

That Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact kept Japan from declaring war on the USSR even after the German alliance invaded and declared war on the USSR; and kept the USSR from declaring war on Japan even after Japan attacked and declared war on the Allies(NOT USSR) after Pearl Harbor.

The USSR did violate The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact, AFTER both Italy and Germany had surrendered, therefore Article 3 still could not apply. Also that invasion occurred while the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact still in effect for another year, making it a violation of International Law, the Atlantic Charter, the Washington Charter and the UN Charter. This article has clear bias and prejudice and should be removed.

By Wikipedia's own guidelines and rules, this article should be revoked for intentionally describing unproven and disproven statements.

Wikipedia points out how much debate has taken place here but refuses to remove what has been proven to be not neutral and objective reporting on a topic, but instead reciting old propaganda lies.

I agree with the above, why is this article still up when it has clearly violated Wikipedia's own rules?DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource Original Text[edit]

Just thought that an editor might like to know, the wikisource text article has been deleted, so the link at the bottom of the top infobox on the left should be deleted or changed to the right link.
I did not want to do this as it may have been flagged as vandalism, since the link is still blue, but if an editor could take this away or change it to avoid confusion, I would be grateful. Thanks -- (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


in what we(but not everyone), call WW2 or the Second World War I found this quote near the beginning of archived page number two. What nations don't acknowledge the existence of the Second World War? Do they even exist? --Repdetect117 (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Many nations do not. The war against Japan is named 'The Greater East Asian Conflict' by Asian nations like Japan, Korea, China, Thailand and former colonies including India who changed the term after Independence. Finland, Sweden and Turkey also differentiate the wars differently than we.
Alot of Latin American nations(not to mention Spain and Portugal) name the war against Japan instead as 'The Pacific War' as opposed to 'The European War', which makes sense to them given when they declared war on whom-ever. Even Russian history distinguishes them as separate wars, they call the war in Europe as "The Great Patriotic War", not even WW2, and the war in Asia as "The Asian War"(see Slavinsky, Jukes or Oxford).

TheBalderdasher (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The term Greater East Asian Conflict was the name that the Imperial Japanese government used for the conflict in the Pacific. Following the end of the war, Japan has referred to the conflict in the Pacific as the "Pacific War". Russian historiography has never considered the "Great Patriotic War" to be separate from the greater global conflict. Second, just because countries use terms like "European War" and "Pacific War" does not mean that they are separate conflicts, in fact, American historians even use those terms. --Repdetect117

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. You are only proving the flaws of your apparently American history education. I used to think the same through most of my University years too, so don't sweat it too much.
If wikipedia hadn’t permitted the deletion of all the properly Russian and English historian sourced posts, you’d see you were wrong about everything except American historian claims linking the 2 wars into 1.
First, the term Greater East Asia Conflict was NOT used to define the Pacific War, but instead in 1937 the ‘conflict’ to support the concept of the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere made official by PM Konoe. In fact it is disappointing to see American histories claim that Japan and China declared war on eachother back in 1937, they did not. The Japanese did not because the government in Tokyo was actually trying to stop the Army. Chiang's KMT did not because then, by American law, then they couldn't receive foreign aid and lend-lease from the United States.
Oxford’s Companion To World War II(Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1995) page 500.
“When describing the war they fought between 1941 and 1945-the Allies call it the *Pacific War- the Japanese, in their English-language coverage of the war directed at the peoples of the conquered territories, generally use the phrase ‘Greater East AsiWar’ (Dai To-A Senso).”
Second, I’ve been to Japan, Korea and the China’s myself, teach students from those countries, and can attest to the fact that, even today(let alone your claim they changed their terminology post-war) they all make the distinction between the ‘Greater East Asian War/Conflict’ as being that involving China, and ‘the Pacific War’ as being that involving the war against the Allies.
Third, I’ll use American historians on Wikipedia itself here to prove wrong your statement regarding ‘The Great Patriotic War’; which may influence you more than my own English translation of the most recent Russian history books authored by Slavinsky and the Slavic Educational Institute, to prove the hearsay of the exchange students we had from Russia, Ukraine and Belorusse three years ago, their history books agree with our Oxford definition of ‘The Great Patriotic War’.
1st, even your own Wikipedia ‘American’ historians. Look up ‘The Great Patriotic War’ on Wikipedia.
"The term Great Patriotic War (Russian: Великая Отечественная война, Velikaya Otechestvennaya Voyna[1]) is used in Russia and some other states of the former Soviet Union to describe their portion of the Second World War from June 22, 1941, to May 9, 1945, against Nazi Germany and its allies. The term is not generally used outside the former Soviet Union (see Eastern Front).
There is a difference between this term and World War II or Second World War, as the Russian term denotes only the war between Germany and its European allies, and the Soviet Union. The war with Japan (including invasion of Manchuria) and the war on the Western front are not referred to by this term."
2nd our the Oxford History to WWII, Page 434. “The German-Soviet war, known in the USSR as the Great Patriotic War ranks as the greatest conflict ever fought on A SINGLE FRONT.”
Page 1207The USSR was an active participant in the Second World War from start to finish, from September 1939 until August 1945. Official Soviet propaganda, which came to be widely accepted in the West in relation to events in eastern Europe, made great efforts to conceal this fact. Soviet histories have always preferred the label of ‘The Great Patriotic War, 1941-45...”
Your fourth error(second comment) is that just because even American historians use the terms ‘Pacific War’ and ‘European War’ doesn’t make them separate conflicts only highlights the arrogance of your position. That just because American historians use the terms to describe 2 aspects of the same war that other nations must mean the same as well.
We’ve already proven, even using your trust in American Wikipedia historians, that various nations not only use the terms differently, but use different terms altogether. If you read translations of Volkogonov or best yet the latest Slavinsky and others you can get through the Slavic Research Center, you’ll see Russian history books still use the term ‘Great Patriotic War’ for the war in Europe and any of the following I’ve found:
'The War Against Japan', 'The Japanese Campaign', 'The Campaign in the Far East' even 'The Pacific War' but nowhere do I see it referred to as 'WWII' nor 'The Second World War'. If you have a MODERN(since 2005) English-translated Russian history book that clearly identifies the Soviet attack as part of WWII, tell me the name, author and publisher and I’ll order it too.
And I consider those old authors like Adyrkhayev as patriotically-biased propagnadists as do Slavinsky and Jukes.
Right now, the only recent Russian publications like Slavinsky clearly identify the Soviet war against the Germans and her allies in Europe as separate to their LATER war with Japan, especially as it clearly violated their own Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact. I’m sure the others notice, as I do, that in all your defense of the article as written, that you do not even mention the gross absence of that pact. I suggest you read “The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact”(2005 Slavinsky) translated into English by Jukes.
As aforementioned, we seem hypocritical to define one pair of wars as a single war when we conveniently define other less boastful pairings as separate wars. The critics are correct when they say we Americans were far more tied to the French linking the Franco-English Wars and The War of American Indepdence not to mention the Napoleonic-Coalition Wars and the War of 1812, so using that reasoning does seem hypocritical.
As one, now deleted I see, Vietnamese contributor here pointed out, by that reasoning the USA was at war with Stalin because their ally the KMT were at war with the CCP. Even modern Russian historians using the most recent investigation of unsealed secret KGB and Diplomatic records admit that the Soviets, Japanese, Germans and Italians all officially viewed the European and Pacific(Chinese) wars as distinctly separate conflicts. You can see actual quotes by the various political leaders and foreign ministers.
I believe the criterion you use to claim 2 wars must be the same war is as flawed as that attempt in modern days trying to tie the Iraq and Afghan wars together. If even most of our allies swallowed that anymore, then all of NATO or at least even NORAD would’ve been in Iraq like they are in Afghanistan.
To show you how even our history changes, since 2001 Oxford itself has changed the definition of ‘the Axis’ to exclude Japan. Page 93 “ (the Axis) the alliance between Germany and Italy in the Second World War.”
As I said before, you're beliefs are not uncommon. I used to believe the same way until I was further educated by more unbiased sources. Sadly these continued nationally-biased representations of history only feed especially post-Iraq jokes on how gullible 'anglo-americans' are.TheBalderdasher (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I got my information about the how the Japanese nomenclature of the war in the Pacific from this website: [1]. It is a site that contains several English translations of Japanese school textbooks. I believe you said that you've taught in Japan so I'm curious if you have ever encountered these publications before. And one more thing, I'd appreciate if you got rid of your hostile tone. Repdetect117 (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Debates in Archives[edit]

For those of you who care, the old sourced debates you complain missing are in the 'archives'.

But that only goes to prove that none of you should bother with Wikipedia anymore.

It doesn't matter how well you source your evidence for corrections of articles here, nothing changes.

Stop wasting your time guys.

Have just returned from school trip through Asia again. Hope to see y'all somewhere more reliable. Cheers all.DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about Japan from a ww2 knowledge n00b[edit]

Why did Nazi Germany ally itself with two countries (Italy and Japan) that weren't part of the "master race"? And how did they explain that to their citizens? (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer your question re: Japan, except to say that getting Japan to attack the considerable holdings of the Western Powers in East Asia had been German policy since Arthur Zimmerman proposed it in 1917. As to Italy, Hitler mentioned it in Mein Kampf as one of the two European powers that Germany should try to enlist as an ally in the coming war (the other one was England). (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the Third Reich was a totalitarian dictatorship, Hitler did not need to rely upon objective anthropology that would have shown such peoples as the Poles and Czechs as similar and that German peoples had absorbed large numbers of Slavic ancestors. Objective history would have shown more legitimate achievement among Jews (who while domiciled in Europe had surely incorporated much "Aryan" ancestry) as menace. Totalitarian states can always enforce the fantasies of leaders as alternatives to objective science and history through suppression of "troublesome" material.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler showed such admiration of Japanese cultural and technical achievements as well of the samurai culture that he could only conclude that the Japanese were really "white". As for Italy, the country may be less "Nordic" than such nemeses as France and Poland which Hitler hated for reasons best left to a discussion of his weird view of the world. Such countries as Italy and Hungary (in view of the ethnic origin of the Magyars partly from non-European tribes) became partners of the Third Reich because they were "available".

Hitler in fact wanted Britain as a partner in his crimes (again according to Mein Kampf) and would have found Britain compatible so long as it avoided entanglements in the "Continent". The Soviet Union was a potential partner, and could have picked up some pieces of the British colonial empire (most notably British India) in the event of an utter defeat of Britain and significant chunks of China in the event of a collapse of China before Japan. --Pbrower2a (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is all about bias and prejudices. Why is there a binding regulation to use "Nazi Germany" and all articles? Nazi is a depreciative term, and when affixed to a ethnic denomination it is structural racism. It's like Yankee USA or Bolshevist Russia. To answer a question, there is no term "master race" in NS ideology. It's made up by invention for Western and Marxist influenced ideology. And no, I am not a "German". My family is from a Slavic minority living in former Prussia. We were expelled by Allies like millions else, and official Polish Propaganda stated (until recently) that these Slavs were murdered by the "Nazis" and that's why territories annexed by Poland were empty. My grandfather was in a British slave worker camp in Germany until 1950, and his brothers were killed by Poles or Russians in their ethnic homeland since centuries. Anything wrong that I said? Please correct me.


Can anyone explain why Manchukuo was added to the list of Axis Pact signatories? I have looked and not found any evidence that Manchukuo ever signed the treaty (many Axis powers did not, such as Finland, Thailand, Vichy France and China-Nanjing). (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

maybe it should be deleted?

PS. i know its a different subject... but, why in the last paragraphs of this article its says kindom of italy??? in 1944 allied italy had a king? i think not could someone change? tavy 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


I thought about re-reverting to the the version of the article that omitted this sentence: "Modern day Croatia is related to this country only by name and not it's legal predecessor." The same could be said of many of the Axis signatories; why emphasize it here? It's unnecessary and smacks of NPOV. However, I don't want to start an edit war, and suggest we discuss this first. --Yaush (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Italy summer 1943[edit]

What happened after the de:Regierung Badoglio came to power ?

Did they terminate the Tr. pact formally ?

--Neun-x (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


I myself never understood why it was still called "tripartite" after November 1940. It was blatantly clear that membership was fluid, that also other countries could join, so why keep reffering to it as a pact between 3 countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Germany, Italy and Japan were the only countries that counted as major powers. ( (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

"adherence" to the Pact[edit]

Pretty obvious that it is a case of plain poor English/translation. The correct term is "to accede to", or more colloquially, "to join". One can only adhere to sth that he has already joined/signed up to; it means "observe", "abide by". Apparently, "adhere to" could be a proper translation for an alternative version sourced from DNB -- " gegenuber tritt" Axxxion (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)