Talk:Tripartite Pact/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Older comments

On March 25th, 1941, Prince Paul (Pavle), Regent of Yugoslavia, signed the Tripartite Pact. It was not easy for Hitler to gain Yugoslavia's cooperation. There were strong anti-German feelings in the country, especially among the Serbian population. March 27th the regime was overthrown by a military coup d'état with British support, and the 18 years old King Peter II of Yugoslavia seized power.
Although the new rulers opposed Nazi-Germany, they also feared that if Hitler attacked Yugoslavia, Britain was not in any real position to help. For the safety of the country, they declared that Yugoslavia would adhere to the Tripartite Pact.
Postponing Operation Barbarossa the Germans simultaneously attacked Yugoslavia and Greece. From April 6th, Luftwaffe pounded Belgrade to the ground for three days and three nights. German ground troops moved in, and Yugoslavia capitulated on April 17th.

I don't follow. Should explain why Germany decided to attack despite Yugoslavia's adherence to the Tripartite Pact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempshill (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 October 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Yugoslavia was such an important aspect of the war and confusing issue, it deserved better than this confusing over-simplification.AthabascaCree (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree, while I understand he is trying to be succinct, here he is being so short as to be mis-leading.
First, he should point out that Yugoslavia declared itself neutral in Sep 39, but because Hitler had to go save Mussolini regarding Greece, Hitler spent the winter pressuring the prince to join the Tripartite Pact, which it did in 25 March 1941. While there were various let-out clauses, there were also bribes and Yugoslavia was to aquire Salonika in return for it's participation. Otherwise Hitler didn't need Yugoslavia except for a shorter line-of-communication with Bulgaria and to help Mussolini conquer Greece, and of course to keep the British from having friendly territory to land in should they wish to.
Despite the aforementioned(found on Page 1294 of the Greece section of the Oxford encyclopedia on ww2), there was a successful coup nomimally under General Dusan Simovic proclaiming King Peter to be of age now. But immediately the coalition regime started falling apart and to keep it, Vice-Premier and Croation Peasant Party(see how important it is to mention that Yugoslavia wasn't made up of just Serbs as this author does?), demanded the reaffirmation of both Croation Home Rule and adherence to the Tripartite Pact. Which was done.
The problem was that Hitler was so enraged by the coup in the first place, he issued Directive No. 25, decreeing Yugoslavia's obliteration. Ironically only 24 of the 52 Axis divisions that invaded Yugoslavia were German and as we have done today, Germany cut up Yugoslavia into the same mini-states, rewarding those more pro-Nazi and punishing those less pro-Nazi.
I know some Yugoslavs were offended by this author's account because of the fact is that the original Prince Regent Paul was in fact an anglophile, and that it was because he and his Serbian supporters wavered too long before committing to the Allied side, before they knew it, France had surrendered.
A failing of this wiki-author is over-simplifying Yugoslavia as if if was only Serbs. But you'll notice he often intentionally omits historical facts that don't go along with his pre-disposed propaganda track.
Something else I find incredible that this wiki-author keeps refusing to allow us to point out is the fact that this Yugoslav/Greece campaign set back Hitler's 'Operation Barbarossa Plan' by about 6 weeks; and if you consider how close the Germans came to capturing Moscow or say Leningrad before that record-breaking winter froze them put, it might very well have saved Stalin.
So I hope my explanation makes more sense than his without being too long. Cheers to my friend Dubrovnic who was so offended by this article.Befuddler (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've standardised the dates in the article: Wikipedia allows users to display dates according to preference if the wikitext follows standard format.

The article mentions the US a lot. I was not aware that that country was an Axis power. I suggest that the article shows US POV. The response of the Soviet Union and other Allied powers to Axis threat is just as valid.

Gareth Hughes 12:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the biased American Point of View here and in the related articles. Very disappointing. But as you'll see proven below, this author refuses to admit to the historical fact that the USSR was open to and was in fact invited to join to make it a Pact of Four instead. A totally corrupted American/victor-biased representation of the topic at hand.

Befuddler (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while I agree that this is without a doubt american-biased, it's 'victor-biased' in fact and totally Soviet-biased too.

I've been following this for weeks and get disgusted each time I see a properly documented correction to this piece of bias only to have it cut/edited out by the author or wiki-gods again and again.

If it were me on this Yugoslav topic, I might point out that the reason Hitler wanted to bother getting Yugoslavia into the Tripartite Pact was because of Italy's failure with Greece pushing them into British hands long before back in 1940, and the reason the Serbs were pro-British was because in WW1 they served together on the Salonika Front 1915-18 and that Serbs dominated the officer corps.
That the Slovenes didn't see anything they liked while the Croats were actually more pro-Italian. The Macedonians similarily looked at the Bulgarians as liberators to help them set up an independent state. Basically, everyone knew Yugoslavia was back then like it was till we divided it up recently, an unreliable region of ethnic tension no-one wants to rely on. But this author doesn't even touch on that.AthabascaCree (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


(UTC)

too much theory?

>This declaration of war against the United States was arguably the greatest mistake made by the Third Reich

Surely it was a mistake, but I think that neither declaration of war against USA, nor the Operation Barbarossa deserve the title of "Greatest Mistake made by the Third Reich". It's simply too subjective.

I agree with the author here. It was definately one of his worst mistakes. On the one hand, I agree with the critics, Britain was far closer to being starved out of the war than we admitted to ourselves till recently and Donitz felt that, with Goering's support(which he would never get), he could starve Britain into submission within a certain period if he had permission to unrestricted attacks on American shipping and Allied convoys even before Halifax. But on the otherhand, I agree with the author in that by other reasoning, not only was Hitler totally unprepared for war with America, having no plan, apparently shocking even Borhman let alone Donitz and Mussolini...but even if you know America is moving towards war with you, why rush towards it? Roosevelt couldn't get Congress to declare full-mobilisation even after Pearl Harbour, but after Hitler's declaration of war, that road would become less steep for him. My point is, maybe he should've made Roosevelt declare war on him instead and kept American public opinion less indignant and therefore less mobilised.

AthabascaCree (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

>While the plans of the German military effort included an eventual attack directly upon the U.S

Where do you get this? let's see a source.AthabascaCree (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the source for this. Hitler might have considered attack on USA in late future, but AFAIK German military never made plans for an actual invasion of USA. (Although it did make plans for invasions of Switherland, Italy, Sweden, Turkey, Hungary and many other countries which didn't directly oppose Germany)

You hit on a good point that you will see this author do over and over here, propaganda. He will claim, without telling you all the circumstances around the topic, that just because an enemy could do something, that that meant they were planning on and bound to do that thing beligerantly. While of course that rule never applies to us. The reality we can prove to this point, and we're always having more of the truth revealed the more Secrecy Act files become unsealed, was that once Generalstabshef der Luftwaffe, Generalleutnant Walter Wever died in a plane accident before the war, so did the German long-range heavy bomber lobby. Hitler switched priority to shorter-ranged faster lighter bombers instead.Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
However, it is true that others kept working on Wever's idea of bombers that could hit the furthest most Soviet industries hidden behind the Urals in Siberia, without thinking of targeting North America at the time. Besides the Me264 there would also be the He 274, the Ju390 and Ta400 even pipe-dream Silbervogel and multi-stage A4/V2 inter-continental bombers. None of this means Hitler was planning on attacking America all along. There is no doubt Hitler was considering war with America the more American flaunted International if not American Neutrality Laws, but that motive for planning to attack America only came LATER, as the critic rightly points out, not from the start as inferred here.
There is a video series I've got around here somewhere from Time-somebody I think, with one episode about 'Hitler's war with America' or something like that. But once you watch it, including recently unsealed information from Secrecy Acts, you realize how last-minute and poorly planned and prepared let alone organized the 'infiltration' efforts even were, where each one of the few Uboat landed conspirators was caught without even meeting any member of the Klu Klux Klan or any Nazi-sympathetic group or American spy network, not a single rail line or bridge was even blown. You come away with the impression Hitler wasn't even serious about such things even after America was at war with him. The author's insinuation here is that Hitler planned on attacking America ALL ALONG and that's why he declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour is propaganda, not history.Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


>This would allow the creation of long range bombers

Didn't you hear that in 1941 Germany already posessed Me-264 bombers which were capable of bombing New York City?

Oh please. Back in 1941 the Me-264 was still in design stage. It wasn't until December of 1942 that the unarmed Me264 V1 completed it's maiden test flight as a recon model. Willy Messerschmitt was unable to keep his promises and the second prototype, nearly 80% completed, was destroyed soon after Me 265 V1 was in an enemy air raid in summer of 1944. Source "German Heavy Bombers" Manfred Griehl/Joachim Dressel 1994.AthabascaCree (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, the three last paragraphs seem contain too much unnecessary theory. Just mentioning that Germany declared war on USA despite not being obliged to do so would be enough.

I also heard that right after the coup in Yugoslavia, Moscow signed a treaty of alliance with new Yugoslavian government. Maybe I will add that when I find an actual proof for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami321 (talk • contribs) 01:23 - 01:29, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I am going to make a few changes, especially because this "achieve world domination" mythos is exactly that - common held belief that reflects Allied propaganda. You further reveal you lack of knowledge on the subject when you go into detail about control of Africa. In reality, it was only Rommel who broke from the defensive strategy in Africa and the defensive campaign only came into being because of failed Italian military plans. I started to go into detail about the linkeage between Germany and Japan and how this affected the war. Possibly the same thing could be done for Italy. Speaking of German ingenuity and scientific research, has anyone ever heard of this? http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Einstein-Antigravity.pdf Strange.--68.45.21.204 02:36 - 03:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Strange, YES! weird huh? Ever see the thing on the Japanese giant ray-gun?

or the CIA and KGB stuff on working with psychics? that's a great link, thanks!Befuddler (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. In actual fact, Hitler seemed to be sticking with his own self-set limits of 'Lebensraum'(living space for Aryans) from Northern Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic because, even at his height, he only annexed Normandy(whose people he considered ancestors of the Northmen Vikings) and left the rest of France to Vichy. He even passed off policing of Southern European allies to the Italians. He obviously didn't want to invade the UK, calling it a 'global stabilising force' and of course a Nordic people being 'Anglo-Saxon', like the Americans and Canadians for that matter to his mind. This idea that he was out for global conquest is just more proof of this author's propagandic rather than historical view of the topic. Hitler wanted his Lebensraum, meaning Northern Europe excluding the UK from the Urals to the Atlantic. Mussolini wanted to ressurrect the old Roman Empire, at least where it didn't conflict with Hitler's Lebensraum. As for Japan, their Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, represented unfairly by this author as pure propaganda when others here have quoted Japanese leaders obviously sincere in their belief of it over pure Imperialism, he mis-represents that as well. This article fits ideally into British historian and Russian translator Geoffrey Jukes' criticism of how embarassing it is that our own historians to this day still prefer to regurjitate our war-time propaganda rather than recheck the facts and represent the impirical truth, however embarassing to our side. This article is way too much continuation of our own propaganda instead of the latest impirical unbiased truth international readers look to Wikipedia for.Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


The agreement formalized the Axis Powers' partnership, and can be read as a warning to the United States to remain neutral in World War II — or become involved in a war on two fronts.[citation needed]

The pact the three nations agreed that for the next ten years they would "stand by and co-operate with one another in... their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things... to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned." They recognized each other's spheres of interest and undertook "to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked" by a country not already involved in the war, excluding the Soviet Union.

The pact supplemented the previous German-Japanese Agreement and the Anti-Comintern Pact, both of 1936 and helped overcome the rift that had developed between Japan and Germany following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939.

Typical victor propaganda. Finally even victor historians like Slavinsky(Russian), Jukes(British), Macksey, Pritchard even American John Toland whose work exemplifies the reversal of historical opinion and record on 'facts' as time goes by and more records, especially those once sealed by Secrecy Acts, are studied are brave enough start admitting to and correcting our own long-repeated propagandic historical record, 'privilege of the victors' as Napoleon would say. The fact is that when Hitler was signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact during the very same days the Japanese and Russian armies were clashing on border incidents along Manchuria, Japan declared that Hitler had not only violated and nullified the Anti-Comintern Pact, but betrayed them outright. So when any author says the Tripartite Pact was even an extension of the Anti-Comintern Pact, that's pure 'victor propaganda privilege'. The irony here is that even the Anti-Comintern Pact was a matter of debate in Japan.

"The Japanese War Machine" Chartwell Press 1976
Page 38 "In November 1936 Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany, a move designed to secure Japan against the possibility of Russian intervention. This pact was engineered not by the normal diplomatic channels, but largely by the Japanese Military Attache in Berlin, the Japanese Ambassador being excluded from the discussions." But until those British/American authors wrote that book in 75 based on new research, that was definately not the impression of the Pact I was taught in school. Obviously the author of this article is either still unaware of these newer rechecked historical facts, or intentionally trying to omit them like any good propagandist.


"The Oxford Companion to WWII" Oxford Companion Press, New York 1995
Page 606 "Moreover, the Japanese were deeply resentful of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939, of which Germany had given them no advance notice. As a result, JAPAN DECLARED ITS STRICT NEUTRALITY."


That is definatley NOT the impression the author of this article is leaving the reader.

Page 862 "Pact of Steel", Mussolini's name for a military alliance between Italy and Germany which was signed in Berlin on 22 May 1939 by the two contries' foreign ministers, Ciano and Ribbentrop.It declared that either country would come to the aid of the other if it were attacked and athe Italians signed it on the verbal understanding that neither power would provoke war before 1943. Ciano recorded in his diary that Hitler was well satisfied with the Pact, and confirmed that Mediterranean policy would be directed by Italy. However, the Pact's political effect was much reduced by Japan's REFUSAL TO JOIN IT.

"
Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, these wiki author's on the topic leave these MAJOR facts out. The one pact that Mussolini nick-named 'Axis' was the one pact that Japan deliberately refused to join. So I agree with those braver historians out there who not only point out this is why Italy refused to declare war on Poland, nor even France and Britain when they declared war on Germany, but only after Mussolini learnt the French were throwing in the towel...but also those who point out this proves the Japanese claim they never considered themselves part of the 'Axis Pact', which was referred to by Mussolini only to relate to the Rome-Berlin relationship. But again, these wiki articles deliberately omit such information to intentionally? perpetuate old propaganda rather than new impirical historical fact.
So how can the Tripartite Pact be an extension of the Anti-Comintern Pact the Japanese declared themselves 'strictly neutral' over after the betrayal of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, or the 'Pact of Steel' which the Japanese refused to join because of its very terms of provoking war(something English historians I note conveniently avoid mentioning).
Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Then when you will later see evidence by specialist Russian and English historians specialists on Russian-Japanese and English-Japanese relations, using the most recent unbiased viewing of not only diplomatic but newly released intelligence files. This evidence will show the Japanese reluctantly resolved to the idea of 'if you can't beat them, join them' and since Germany wasn't going to help them against Russia(the whole point behind the Anti-Comintern Pact), then Japan might as well join Germany in making Russia an ally instead. It wasn't ONLY to dissuade the Americans from entering either the European or Chinese war, from the Japanese perspective, they saw the Tripartite Pact as becoming a Pact of Four to INCLUDE the Soviet Union as an ally. That would be even more likely to keep America out of the war. But these wiki authors on Japan and ww2 continue to omit this knewly acknowledged knowledge and mis-represent Japan's motives regarding the Tripartite Pact, out-right omitting the existance of the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact signed just weeks before Germany would invade Russia, while the Japanese were still under the impression Germany was helping them get an alliance with the USSR instead. The fact the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact is totally omitted here seems to prove Geoffrey Jukes' Preface criticism of unethical historical record in the book "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" by Boris Slavinsky, translated and contributed by English historian and specialist on ww2 Britan Foreign Office and Japan Geoffrey Jukes 2005.Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tripartite Pact was subsequently joined by Hungary (November 20, 1940), Romania (November 23, 1940), and Slovakia (November 24, 1940). Bulgaria joined on March 1, 1941, prior to the arrival of German troops.

I totally agree about 'too much theory'.
First, the term Axis referred to the 1939 'offensive' Pact of Steel between Rome and Berlin that Tokyo refused to join.
Second, the Japanese considered the 1936 Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany nullified with the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact obviously.
Third, prove to us that the Japanese ratified in some treaty renaming the Tripartite Pact as the Axis Pact, otherwise treat them as separate treaties.
Fourth, the Japanese signed the Tripartite Pact, which unlike the Pact of Steel nicknamed 'Axis Pact' by Mussolini, was a defense pact and Japan signed it as much to improve relations if not ally with the Soviet Union as to keep America out of either war.
Fifth, even the Oxford Encyclopedia on the Companion to WWII agrees with these fellows that Bulgaria and Yugoslavia did repudiate the treaty almost immediately for the same reason as Japan. They joined under the impression it was to encourage alliance with the Soviet Union, not war with it.
Finally, by totally omitting the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact and the fact that it was Washington, not Tokyo, who refused last minute face-to-face appeals for peace, your introduction and entire article does come across with a definate pro-American anti-Japanese bias.Clousseau (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Focus on Tripartite Act

The last 2 paragraphs should go entirely. They don't relate to the Tripartite act at all. Maybe they'd be better placed on a page regarding the US involvement in the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J2xshandy (talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to correct this, and accompany some of the contributor's ideas in the last section of my revision. Looks like Rich removed them altogether though. --68.45.21.204 03:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The Tripartite Pact was NOT the Axis Pact.

At least not that I can find evidence for so far.
I see no evidence where all the members of the Tripartite Pact, particularily Japan, signed ratified documents agreeing to rename or even call the "Tripartite Pact" as the "Axis Pact".
Oh, I see lots of 'proofs' that OUR side referred to the Tripartite Pact as the the 'Axis', but just because all our quoted experts said Iraq and Saddam Hussein were allied to Bin Ladin and Alquaeda did not make it true, did it?

Now I'm not saying there isn't any proof.
All I'm saying is that so far, I've seen none. At one time all OUR experts/authorities said Iraq was part of the 'Axis' linked to Afghanistan, and North Korea and at at first Pakistan, then not Pakistan, and at first not Iran but now Iran. No matter how many books or speeches we can quote copying all those claims, did not make it true and makes our media and historical accounts embarassingly propagandic.
All our quoted experts and those selective Iraquies we quoted claimed it was a 'slam dunk' that Iraq had WMDs, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Atomic bomb and new production and stockpiles of nerve gas on the way and so on.

So until someone proves we didn't do the same thing here in our historical accounts, until someone proves that Japan signed some ratified documents agreeing to rename the Tripartite Pact the Axis Pact, then we should stop referring to Japan maybe even others as part of the 'Axis Pact'.

Wanna know why?
I had a teacher who once asked me what we thought of when we saw the term 'Axis Pact' and then same question for the term 'Tripartite Pact'.
On Axis Pact page I wrote I thought of the Final Solution, genocide of Jews, Auschwitz and enslavement of slavic peoples like my ancestry.
That is NOT what I wrote when I thought of the Tripartite Pact.

I don't care if critics say the Japs only helped save Jews from the Nazis(where we wouldn't) because they had the 'racist' view that Jews would be a positive to build an economic infrastructure for their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere thing rather than for purely humanitarian reasons.
Being of partly slavic even apparently Jewish ancestry, I used to try to prove Japan's ongoing friction with Russia was because they were ideologically tied to the Nazi agenda through the Axis I also thought meant the Tripartite Pact. But when asked to prove it, the more I tried and researched the more it seems to be like our modern claims of proof Iraq was a member of the Axis with Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein was allied with Bin Ladin against us in 9/11.
I'm tired of getting into debates with foreigners and finding we can't actually prove certain commonly accepted claims even in history.

So it is important to distinguish the difference between what most of us perceive to mean the 'Axis' and 'Tripartite Pact'. I'm personally fed up with being fed propaganda and expected to stand by the claim only everyone else falls for propaganda. It's sure embarassing us today.

So until someone can prove that the Japs signed and ratified some treaty agreeing to rename the Triparte Pact to the Axis Pact instead, I also call for the cessation of using the term Axis linked to Japan.Clousseau (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Japan and the Jews

This is an interesting topic, but it seems out of place here. The Tripartite Pact says nothing about the Jews. I suggest this material belongs in an article on the history of anti-Semitism.

Japan not part of Axis?

Befuddler 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering if it is historically incorrect to keep referring to Japan as an active military ally of Germany's under some 'Axis Pact'.

First, Japan signed NO documented pact, treaty, alliance or agreement with the title 'Axis'.
The nick-name 'Axis' was for the one treaty Japan refused to join.
The nick-name 'Axis' was used by Italy to refer to the 'Pact of Steel'(May39). It literally referred to the roughly 13 degree East longitudinal axis that linked Berlin and Rome, not Tokyo.

Second, even if we 'english'(victors), claim to have the right to rename pacts and alliances as we wish to indicate 'Axis' applies to the 'Tripartite Pact' instead of the 'Pact of Steel', then it is STILL historically incorrect.

The agreements were NOT all versions of the same original agreement. They were completely different and separate treaties. Like the 'Allies' of WWI included Japan and Italy while the 'Allies' of WWII did not.

Nov36...The 'Anti-Comintern Pact' was a mutual defense pact directed against the USSR that Japan did sign.
May39...The 'Pact of Steel' is signed by Germany and Italy. Japan's refusal to join proves these were two separate treaties/pacts.
This is the pact coined 'Axis' by Mussolini, the one Japan did not join.
Aug39...The 'Anti-Comintern Pact' is declared violated and voided by Germany's signing of the 'Nazi-Soviet Pact'. Japan declares strict neutrality to Germany.
Nov40...The 'Tripartite Pact' was a new treaty signed over a year later by Japan, Germany and Italy. This was another mutual defense pact this time directed mostly against the USA.
Apr41...The'Non-Aggression Pact/Friendship Treaty' signed by Japan with the USSR, proving the separate distinctness of the aforementioned pacts.
Jun41...Germany and her allies invade the USSR. The fact that Japan and the USSR honour their pact is further proof the aforementioned pacts are separate entities AND that neither Japan nor the Soviet Union considered Japan to be an active military ally of Germany, however you nick-name the German alliance.

This time-line not only proves these were separate pacts but ALSO that neither Japan nor the Soviet Union considered Japan part of any active German military alliance, nick-named 'Axis' or otherwise.
If Japan were a military ally of Germany's, she would have declared war on the Soviet Union with Germany and her allies.
(Good thing for us she wasn't and didn't). In fact, another mis-representation of history here is including Bulgaria as an enemy of the Soviet Union. Bulgaria never declared war on the USSR or vs/vs either.

The Tripartite Pact was, at best, a 'nullified' mutual defense agreement. Mutual defense pacts are nullified/cancelled as soon as one of the members violates it(ie Nazi-Soviet Pact) or by attacking someone else(ie German invasion of the USSR).
I can prove through quotes from the Oxford Companion to WWII(1995) that not only was the Anti-Comintern Pact NOT considered a military alliance, but that the subsequent new Tripartite Treaty was pretty much nullified even as a mutual defense pact by secret clauses put in at Japan's request.

<If John and Mark convinced Mathew to join their 'anti-bully' alliance, hereby named the 'Lennon Pact', but then started bullying someone else themselves; then the 'anti-bullying' alliance no longer exists. Especially if Mathew refuses to join them in bullying the third party, it is wrong to keep claiming Mathew is allied to them in the 'Lennon Pact'.

No matter how much Hitler and Mussolini might think that they could convince Japan it was obligated to make their enemies Japan's enemies by using the unsigned term 'Axis', that didn't make it so. Same way no matter how much we want to claim Iraq was behind 9/11 won't make it fact. Just because we, the victors, write the history books, doesn't mean everything we say was necessarily true.

If we want to re-define 'military ally' to mean someone who, without declaration of war, severing of relations even trade, otherwise supports one side in a war, then it appears we are being hypocritical.

It could be argued that even before Pearl Harbour the USA traded, cooperated, coordinated even provided combatants with Britain and China far more than Japan ever did with Germany. If, in order to define Japan as a military ally of Germany's in ww2, we have to expand the definition of what makes a military ally to mirror America's relationship with China and Britain before Pearl Harbour, maybe we should re-think our wording here.

We should then state that Japan was at war with the Allies as of Sep 1940(signing of the Tripartite Pact), not Dec 1941.

We can't have it both ways. We can't say this definition applies only to our enemies, not to us. Otherwise we are being the hypocrites so much of the world accuses us of being after-all.

The histories of the former Soviet Union also deny that Japan was part of any active military alliance with Germany, whether you try to arbitrarily rename the Tripartite Pact 'Axis' or not. That is why when Stalin declared war on his invaders in 1941, he did NOT include Japan nor even Bulgaria for that matter. Another historical mis-representation here.

I propose that if wikipedia wants to appear historically accurate, neutral and unbiased, that whoever has the final say in editing here, cease supporting the following historical mis-representations (and propaganda?):


a) cease referring to any 'Axis Pact' as an official active military alliance.

Just because we say Iraq, Iran and North Korea are part of some 'Axis of Evil', does not make it historically accurate nor true.

b) cease trying to define any active military alliance 'Axis Pact' by the mutual defense 'Tripartite Pact'.

c) cease referring to the 'Tripartite Pact' as anything but a defunct mutual defense pact.

d) cease referring to Japan as an active military ally of Germany's.


If it were true that the Tripartite Pact was in fact the Axis Pact and an active military alliance between Japan and Germany/Italy, then we might have lost the war in Russia as the Siberian armies that saved the European front in 1941/42 would have been at least facing the Japanese instead.

Japan was no more a member of the 'Axis' than Canada is a member of America's 2002 Coalition Invasion of Iraq. Just because Canada is part of a mutual defense pact with the USA in NORAD, does not make it a member of the USA-led 2002 Coalition against Iraq.

This kind of ignorant, or worse, deliberate mis-representation of historical fact not only makes us appear hypocritically re-writing of history and re-defining of words/terms, but is also what allows leaders of any decade to convince their people to support unnecessary if not unjust war efforts(ie Japan invade China or Pearl Harbour).

I put it to the wikipedia editors to represent unbiased historical fact here.

Thanks for having the patience reading all this over-worded bunk?

Thanks for your time and consideration and please consider all this.

Cheers

Japan was a Member of the Axis Alliance!

The reason why Japan did not attack the Soviet Union was that it was not obligated to,
ARTICLE 5. Japan, Germany and Italy affirm that the above agreement affects in no way the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia.

Germany, Italy and Japan even though they not at war with the Soviets simultaneously, they were still united against Britain and it's Commonwealth, the United States and the rest of the Allied nations.

You are talking about the 'Tripartite Pact'. Until you can prove that Japan agreed and ratified a document renaming the 'Tripartite Pact' as the 'Axis Pact', Japan was NOT part of any Axis Pact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clousseau (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Japan and the Soviet Union did engage each other in 1945(August Storm). If you are basing your arguement on the fact that Japan did not attack the Soviet Union then look at the case of Brazil, Brazil declared war on Germany and Italy in August 1942, receiving lend lease and economic aid from the US, it allowed the use of it's airbases to hunt U-boats and even sent an expeditionary force to Italy (FEB), however Brazil did not declare war on Japan until 6/6/1945([1]/ See Brazil) almost after a month after the German surrender. From your reasoning that means that Brazil was not part of the Allies! The Poland, Norway and Czechoslovakia(whose goverments were in exile) contributed nothing against the war against Imperial Japan yet they are still considered part of the Allies.

No, we're basing our arguments on the fact that:

a) The USSR happily signed the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact in April 1941(due to expire in April 1946 with required announcement of intent to not renew the pact 1 year before expiration), only weeks before the German invasion and considered it honoured by both sides all that critical time.
b) The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact was signed BEFORE any military pact with us, Britain or America.
c) That, as even Russian historian Boris Slavinsky points out, therefore the Soviet declaration of war on and attack of Japan was against the very founding laws and principles of the Atlantic and UN Charters.
d) Not to mention the fact that by encouraging and supporting Stalin to do so, that it seems no different than what we charged our enemy leaders as War Crimes for. Hell, I started out here on your side and the more you 'discuss' with your critics here, the more I'm changing my mind on all this and embarassed by our part. God, the more I studied this at first to try to support you, now agree wih the critics, the more I see why the world calls us hypocrites lol. Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Japan was an active military ally of Germany - The Yanagi Missions(as stated in the article), Technical Co-operation(Ki-61 Hien had DB-601 engine, Mitsubishi J8M and Mitsubishi Ki-202 were based on German designs etc., Military co-operation in the form of the Monsun Gruppe.

I agree yet disagree with you here. Like "Operation Caesar", where in February 1944 Hitler finally agreed to license the 'Swallow' Me262 jet fighter by sending U-864, a long-haul U-boat loaded with a dis-assembled Me262 and senior level Japanese, though not German, aeronautical scientists and engineers along with architect reports and designs, though some critics wonder why he sent Cpt Rolf Reimer Wolfram, who was totally inexperienced. Why not send at least a veteran captain like Lieutenant Johann "Dynamite" Fehler for such an important mission? Also 2000 flasks of mercury! Used for bomb detonations. When I watched this series on the enemy atom bomb programs and this German-Japanese trade, this is a big environmental issue for modern Norway unfortunately.Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Fehler was the captain of U-234 that was finally sent by Hitler to Japan in April 1945 with illustrious passengers Lieutenant General Ulrich Kesssler of the Luftwaffe; Colonels Sandrat and Neishling, also of the Luftwaffe; civilian rocket and jet experts; and most mysterious of all, Lieutenant Commanders Hideo Tomonaga and Genzo Shoji of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Also on board were two Me262 jet fighters, the patents and engineering documents for tooling etc and most interesting of all, 560 kg of uranium oxide!! But upon hearing of Donitz's surrender, he decided to call off the mission and surrender to the nearest Allied base leaving the Japanese, unable to convince Hitler's 'chosen men' to follow through with the mission anyways, committed suicide.
I won't go into the enemy atom bomb debate. I know they knew the Riken factory for the Japanese bomb project had already been destroyed and I know the Germans needed to produce 10 times more heavy water than they were. I also know recent evidence points more to a power-plant option to relieve reliance on oil, but that's not the point.
The point is I agree with the author's point of how, by the end of the war, Hitler was willing to share everything with the Japs.Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
But, then I have to agree with you others. Why then did Hitler refuse to share these technologies even 4 years earlier when they could have made a difference? That does seriously deflate this author's claim of bi-lateral sincerity, value and effect of the Tripartite Pact as far as trade and technology were concerned. That's clearly not the case.
If it were, even before Pearl Harbour, Japan could have had the 88mm flak and anti-tank gun, the superior Fw190 instead of inferior Me109, the aformentioned He178 and 280 jet fighters, the superior German tanks, superior radar, superior sonar and night-fighter technology and tactics, all with-held from Japan for years after signing the Tripartite Pact.Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And worse, where was the Japanese trade to the Germans? I agree with Befud, if the Japs had sent the Germans plans for the A6m2 Zero, we could have lost the Battle of Britain and the war. If the Japs had sent their plans for their superior long-range submarines, capable of greater speed, range, depth and endurance, let alone the Type93 Long-lance torpedo with which we could have lost the Battle of the Atlantic, Mediterranean or Murmansk Convoy route.Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The author is right, by the end of the war, Germany was honouring that part of the Tripartite Pact, but he leaves out the fact that it was way too little way too late. The mentioned Ki61 Hien was 2 years late, the J8m license of the Me163 also 2 years late and never mass-produced when they could have and the Ki-202 license of the Me262, same thing. Had they been licensed to Japan when they could have been, they could definately made a big difference in our war effort against Japan. But the author AGAIN, conveniently leaves out those vital facts for some reason.Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about it, and remember, I started out agreeing with you, the more I see this 'like a life-guard waiting until after the drowning victim was half way to the bottom before throwing out the life-preserver. Then someone saying, well, he followed through on his contractual obligations whole-heartedly.'Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Alliance was also referred to as the Axis by German propaganda.

"The Strength of the Axis

National Socialist Germany is in the best position to understand Japan. We and the other nations of the Axis are fighting for the same goals that Japan is fighting for in East Asia, and understand the reasons that forced it to take action. We can also understand the driving force behind Japan's miraculous rise, for we National Socialists also put the spirit over the material. The Axis Pact that ties us to Japan is not a treaty of political convenience like so many in the past, made only to reach a political goal. The Berlin-Rome-Tokyo alliance is a world-wide spiritual program of the young peoples of the world. It is defeating the international alliance of convenience of Anglo-Saxon imperialist monopolists and unlimited Bolshevist internationalism. It is showing the world the way to a better future. In joining the Axis alliance of the young peoples of the world, Japan is using its power not only to establish a common sphere of economic prosperity in East Asia. It is also fighting for a new world order. New and powerful ideas rooted in the knowledge of the present and the historical necessities of the future that are fought for with fanatical devotion have always defeated systems that have outlived their time and lost their meaning."

Das Geheimnis japanischer Kraft (Berlin: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1943).

Is not that exactly the criticism? You are actually proving the point against your claim. That instead of providing a Japanese gov't-signed agreement renaming the Tripartite Pact or any other relationship with the Germans as 'Axis', you provide only the admitted PROPAGANDISTS, some commanders even bureaucrats or our leaders making the claim.

Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal...how it all makes sense if we just admit they were 2 separate wars that overlapped chronologically.

You wrote: The reason why Japan did not attack the Soviet Union was that it was not obligated to, ARTICLE 5. Japan, Germany and Italy affirm that the above agreement affects in no way the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia.

Not really. You are actually proving my point that we keep trying to redefine a ‘defensive’ alliance as an ‘offensive’ alliance. The actual reason Japan was not obligated to attack the USSR with the German-led alliance was because of Article 3.

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.

So even if there were NO ‘Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact’, between Japan and the USSR before the invasion, Japan was not obligated to declare war on the USSR. It's simple, when part of a 'defense pact', you are only obligated to fight if someone 'attacks' it.

You wrote: Germany, Italy and Japan even though they not at war with the Soviets simultaneously, they were still united against Britain and it's Commonwealth, the United States and the rest of the Allied nations.

Not true. What I am saying is that they were 2 different wars, (like today’s Afghan and Iraq wars). If what you say was true, then the pre-American ‘Allies’ would have been at war with Japan as of April 1940 when the Tripartite Pact was signed. THEY WERE NOT. Not only were the British and Japanese still at peace and trading with eachother, but the British were even stepping up efforts to try to convince Japan to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance 1902 that helped Japan defeat Russian in 1905 and helped Britain defeat Germany in ww1. Remember, until Churchill learnt from Ultra(British reading of German codes) that Hitler was going to betray his alliance with Stalin, he was worried he might have to war with the other half of the Nazi-Soviet alliance too.

As for being united against us;

“…in practice, there was extraordinarily little co-ordination of military or diplomatic activities during the war. Hitler and Mussolini, the leaders of Germany and Italy, undoubtedly admired each other immensely, but this admiration was not shared by their respective military and naval leaders nor by their respective peoples….Japan: In that case there was perhaps and inversion of the situation between Germany and Italy, in that the military and naval leaders did have high regard for the abilities of their wartime partners, but there is no evidence that the two European Axis leaders and Tojo Hideki, the leader of Japan until the summer of 1944, particularily cared for each other. As for Tojo’s successors, Koiso Kuniaki and Suzuki Kantaro, neither had a high opinion of the Euroepan Axis leaders, who in turn appear to have known next to nothing of about either.” (P96 “The Oxford Companion to WWII”)

Zhukov used the new T34s against the Japanese in 1939, the fact that Guderian was totally surprised by them 2 years later shows how 'united' Japan was with Germany. "Zhukov arrived in early June and began gathering a powerful force (35 battalions, 20 cavalry squadrons, 500 aircraft, and 500 of the new and powerful T34 tanks)."

Can you provide the source for the T34 here? I said the same thing based on your quote but now my books say the T34 wasn't produced until 1940.AthabascaCree (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Cree; yes I can. Though I am also skeptical. You were right about new information. If you watch the newest 'Tank' series on the History Channel, there are new programs using new research from the former Soviet Union by the guys at Bovington and Sandhurst. Both the program "T34" and the special on Klimenti Voroshilov, hero of the Soviet Union report Russian claims that the T34 and Kv1s were in fact produced sooner and in larger numbers than Western historians have thought. That the first T34 factories were in Siberia for instance, long before 'Tankograd' in Siberia. They even interview with translators, Russian veterans. There is so much new being learnt not only from the fall of the Soviet Union, but the release of Secret files and records obviously. I can tell you when I first started reading that Slavinsky book I was sure disturbed. It had alot of evidence contrary to what I always believed.

Apparently the Oxford was convinced about the T34 stories too. "The Oxford Companion to World War II": Japanese-Soviet Campaigns Page 636.

""...Reinforced with artillery the Kwantung Army tried again on 23 July(1939), but were again checked. However Stalin, concerned that the Japanese were aiming to cross into Soviet territoriy and cut the Trans-Siberian railway--the only means of transporting troops to and from the Far East--sent General Zhukov to re-ogranize Soviet forces into the newly formed First Army Group and launch a counter-offiensive. Zhukov arrived in early June and began gathering a powerful force (35 infantry battalions, 20 cavalry squadrons, 500 aircraft, and 500 of the new and powerful T34 tanks) which outnumbered anything the Kwantung Army could put into the field."

:::Despite the Soviet veteran interviews and new Russian claims, I too still have my doubts on this claim. But there it is, I do have that book source, so if you still think its BS, I suggest you write the Oxford Encyclopedia ww2 historians they use I guess.

I'm still skeptical, but here are more. http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/03/msg00101.html

http://worldwar2database.com/html/nomonhan.htm

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/nomonhan.aspx

Befuddler (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: Japan and the Soviet Union did engage each other in 1945(August Storm).

True. But then you are excusing everything our enemies did, and deny all the principals we claimed we were fighting the war for by lauding the unprovoked international aggression and betrayal of signed treaties/pacts/agreements. Because the only way your statement came true was by the USSR violating the Japanese-Soviet Non-Aggression/Neutrality/Friendship pact not due to expire until April 1946. Congratulations, you just made my point for me. Either we acknowledge there were 2 separate wars, 2 separate sets of ‘Grand Alliances’, or you demean and dishonor all the principal we claim we fought the wars for.

You Wrote: If you are basing your arguement on the fact that Japan did not attack the Soviet Union then look at the case of Brazil, Brazil declared war on Germany and Italy in August 1942, receiving lend lease and economic aid from the US, it allowed the use of it's airbases to hunt U-boats and even sent an expeditionary force to Italy (FEB), however Brazil did not declare war on Japan until 6/6/1945([1]/ See Brazil) almost after a month after the German surrender. From your reasoning that means that Brazil was not part of the Allies! The Poland, Norway and Czechoslovakia(whose goverments were in exile) contributed nothing against the war against Imperial Japan yet they are still considered part of the Allies.

Again, not true.What I am saying was that the war in Europe and the war in Asia were 2 separate wars. 2 separate groups of alliances. 2 separate military alliances we deliberately, or just simply irresponsibly, confuse by using the same title ‘Allies’ or ‘Grand Alliances’. Once we admit they were 2 separate wars, then it all makes more sense and make us look all the more moral.

You Wrote: From your reasoning that means that Brazil was not part of the Allies! The Poland, Norway and Czechoslovakia(whose goverments were in exile) contributed nothing against the war against Imperial Japan yet they are still considered part of the Allies.

Again, not true. All I am saying is that if we want to portray that period of history accurately, that in the same way we do not include the Finnish Winter War nor the ongoing Chinese Civil War as part of what we call ww2, that we should record there being 2 separate wars: one in the ‘West’(Europe, Mediterranean) and one in the ‘East’(Pacific and East Asia), and therefore 2 separate groups of friends and foes, 2 separate formations of ‘Allies’. Then we also appear more moral historically. All we have to do is refer to our alliance against Germany as the ‘Western Allies’ and that against Japan as the ‘Eastern Allies’; refer to the German-Italian-led European/Mediterranean War as the ‘Axis’ and the Japanese-led war in the East as the GEACPS if you like(Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere) which is how I see it used in Asian history books, just use the initials like we do for NATO or NORAD today.

  • I remind you when using these names, these are not actual signed treaty alliances like NATO, they were only nick-names used by either side. There was never any signed document of alliance between even Britain, France and Poland at the start titled ‘Grand Alliance’ anymore than there was ever any signed document of alliance between Germany, Japan and Italy titled ‘Axis’.

In the European Conflict: September 1939 to June 1941 Grand Alliance = British-led French, Polish, Dutch, Dane, Belgian, Norwegian London governments-in-exile Versus Axis Alliance = German Reich and her agreed vassals and Italy (*Finland, for instance, wanted war only with the USSR to regain her territory we let Stalin take from her by naked force no different that Hitler; while Bulgaria wanted to make sure she was never at war with the USSR.) June 1941-May 1945 Grand Alliance = same as above with the addition of the United States and at the very end the rest of the Latin American nations.

In what the Japanese call the Greater East Asian Conflict: July 1937 to December 1941 KMT or Nationalist China, sometimes allied to sometimes fighting Mao’s CCP, Chinese Communist Party or Reds. Versus Imperial Japan December 1941 to September 1945 Grand Alliance including the United States and the KMT, with the USSR entering in the very end literally. Versus Imperial Japan, Siam(Thailand) and east-asian independence-minded puppet regimes like Emperor Pu Yi’s Manchukuo, Wang Ching Wei’s Nationalist Chinese, Bose India, Sukarno Indonesia and so on.

You see, this is the very danger of mis-using, intentional or not, terms and words that are not actually official historical documents. For example. We use the term ‘Grand Alliance’ or ‘Allies’ to describe an activated military alliance in WW1 that included Japan and Italy, and again use the term ‘Allies’ to describe on group in WW2 that does NOT include Japan and Italy. Not a big deal, except of course you can tell the ‘anti-Japanese’ wikipedia sites here because they do not mention Japan as a member of the ‘Allies’ despite it being and undisputed historical fact by English and Japanese historians. But when, in our propaganda, we tried to make ourselves look more moral than we were and try to imply America was standing up to the Nazis all the time, and try to make the world out to be black and white, we tried to link the 2 separate wars into 1, just like we try to link Saddam Hussein and Iraq to 9/11 today, we over-generalized into using 2 mis-leading nick-names, ‘Axis’ and ‘Allies’.


It’s not really an impossible distinction for us to grasp, seriously, we are bright enough in America.

Today we use the term ‘coalition’ to describe 2 different groups of allied nations in 2 different wars at the exact same time. There is the Iraq-war ‘coalition’ and the ‘Afghan-war ‘coalition’. While some nations are included in both ‘coalitions’, most are not. Most of the NATO members who agree to the term’coalition’ in Afghanistan, like Canada, Germany, Holland etc, are NOT members of the ‘coalition’ in Iraq. So even today, we use the same title of an alliance to refer to 2 different wars at the very same time, in this case, right next to eachother even. But if you tell a Canadian, German or Hollander etc that they are members of the same ‘coalition’ at war in Iraq, they will take great offense at your ignorance.

The very same applies to the 2 different ‘allies’ in what we(but not everyone), call WW2 or the Second World War. Just because Stalin agreed to join the ‘other’ ‘Allies’ in the Far East after the war in Europe was finished, does NOT mean he was always a member of those ‘Allies’.

That is no more true than saying that the USA was a member of the ‘Allies’ since 1939.

That’s why post-ww2, we gave definate agreed-upon names and titles to our future alliances. We had NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and we had what we called the Warsaw Pact. We do not confuse NATO with NORAD, the American-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command.

Although admittedly we are obviously back at it again with our propagandists and spin-doctors counting on we humans being too simple-minded and lazy to realize that the NATO-led war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Alquaeda in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, is still trying to be referred to as the same alliance mission as the American and British(almost exclusively)-led ‘coalition’ in Iraq to try to cover-up another historical lie and morale embarassment just because they convince the media and historians to keep repeating it enough that it becomes entrenched in history books even if it isn’t true. Like my books that still say Colombus was the first European to discover the Americas, when in fact it was the Vikings.

Now do you see how dangerous it is when describing diplomatic and military terms, names, titles and even nick-names incorrectly/inaccurately? I can’t help but wonder if my student is right, and the reason western historian go along with inaccurately using the dangerously over-generalised terms ‘Axis’ and ‘Allies’ is the same reason that today these same historians feel they have to refer to both admittedly separate missions in Afghanistan and Iraq by the same term ‘coalition’….just to cover up that we made serious morale mistakes. In ww2, it was to hide the fact that America was not standing up to Nazism and all from the start; and today, that we got totally bamboozled into redirecting our efforts away from the real culprits behind 9/11.

Let’s stop being historical hypocrites and start re-earning the world’s trust!


Calling one ignorant

Befuddler (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, since you felt it necessary to call me or maybe one of my student ignorant, I must assume someone called you that first, and though I don't recall calling anyone here ignorant, I apologize if any of mine did. But I don't even know who you are since you didn't sign your post.

I have no problem with stating that some Japanese ambassadors outright told the Russians they remained 'allied' to Germany and Italy under the Tripartite Pact even after the German invasion of Russia. My problem with this article(and my students), is that it doesn't define what they meant by 'allied' nor give enough attention to the fact that Japan actually honored The Soviet-Japan Neutrality Pact, even when Stalin seemed on his last legs, as well.

And I most definately stick by the statement that the KIND of military alliance is what is too often dis-respected and conveniently ignored and that can be dangerous.

That's the whole reason why we didn't declare war on the Soviet Union when it invaded Poland no less than Germany did. At the time, we told the Poles it was because we specifically used the word 'Germany' in the defense pact and that gave us our excuse not to declare war on the Soviet Union eventhough everyone admits the whole point and intention of the Britain-France-Polish pact was to secure Polish Sovereignty. So to much of the world we seem hypocritical to stand on 'technicalities' when it is to our advantage(ie Poland) and to say they don't matter when not to our advantage(ie Soviet-Japan).

It doesn't matter how many times London or Berlin tried to over-simplify the global situation as 'Axis vs Allies', that still doesn't change the fact that Japan and the USSR did not see the 2 wars as 1 war, 'black and white', 'axis and allies'. Even the United States of America didn't consider them the same war even after Pearl Harbor, that's exactly why the US REFUSED to declare war on Germany and Italy after declaring war on Japan. That's all we're saying.

'Refuse' is appropriate here in the same way Japan 'refused' Germany's calls to declare war on the Soviet Union, the USA 'refused' Britain and others' calls to declare war on the Nazis for years. However embarassing, it is true.

Yet the way this article was written, that's the way it sounds. Yet I tell my students that's the way most of our historical record treats the issue. Do we do so to over-shadow embarassing facts by high-lighting more proud facts in our history? Sure. That's why they say 'history is written by the victors'.

But the kids are right, that is not only hypocritical but dangerous. It's a lesson we should have learnt to prevent a present day mis-representation.

The same way our media, till recently, made it sound like the war against Bin Ladin was the same war against Saddam. But now we're going back to distinguishing between the two.

It only seems to prove how important it is NOT to be inaccurate in terminology in intelligence, the media then historical record. Had we been more accurate in our more recent historical record, today's news head-lines and top-stories would again be about the hunt for Bin Ladin and fight with Alqueda rather than Iraq's Civil War and Iran.

Another analogy. Just because the USA invaded Canada in the War of 1812 doesn't mean British and European historians record America as being against the 'Allies' of Britain, Prussia, Russia and Austria etc.
Many of the same combatants, even more cooperation and trade and outright military cooperation even, yet still treated in European history books as 2 separate wars.

How can we claim that we fought ww2 on the principal of punishing aggression when:
a) we refused to declare war on the USSR for doing no less to Finland, Rumania and the Baltic States let alone Poland
b) encouraged said same USSR to violate the same international law and attack Japan while still bound by a voluntary Neutrality Pact?

It clearly comes across as hypocritical.

I was a little embarassed when my newest immigrant student from main-land China said in his history classes it is pointed out that while we convinced Russia to violate international law and attack neutral Japan, even Hitler couldn't convince Japan to do the same. And after Koreans, no-one has less dis-like of the Japanese than the Chinese, so to hear we're called out as hypocrites by our former allies stings all the more.

The good thing about teaching so many immigrants is asking them what their schools teach for history. The bad thing(besides lack of fluency in English) is when even I admit we never admit to our own propaganda and hypocrisy.

These articles, especially when dealing with Japan, seem to focus more on the Tripartite Pact(Axis if you will) as being the other half of the black and white, clear-cut, them and us, alliance against the Allies. Rather than the fact that Japan actually joined it to IMPROVE not HARM relations with the Soviet Union, rather than the fact that Japan intended it's membership from the start to be something to give-up to please and make peace with the Americans. But that's not how it comes across.

Another casualty of this over-simplification is we have apparently forgotten the whole reason the war started in the first place, to protect Polish sovereignty. That seems only to be further proof that how you define terms like 'allies' is actually very important.

For instance, I've never met a Pole who felt 'we, the allies' won WW2, nor that Japan was more of an enemy than the USSR was. So I can see why much of the non-English world doesn't see the topic so 'black and white' as this article implies.

Oh, and for the argument that by licensing the Me109 engine to the Japanese was proof of a Japanese-German military alliance?
the license was actually bought in April 1940, half a year BEFORE the Tripartite Pact was negotiated and signed. And the DB 601A engine licensed to Japan was already considered out-dated even by that time. In fact, Russia received 6 of the He100(arguably superior to the Me109) while Japan received 3. Japan also licensed the great C47 from the USA while at war with China, they called it the L2D3. But that didn't make the USA militarily allied to Japan either.

It's actually a good thing Japan and Germany didn't share their 'best stuff' with eachother as you claim. If Germany had Japanese long-range fighters we might have lost the Battle for Britain. If German Uboats were as big, powerful and long-ranged as the Japanese submarines, or if the Germans had the infamous Japanese Type 93 Long-lance torpedo(or Italians for that matter), we could have lost the Battle of the Atlantic. That's just from the Japanese side, but if Britain was starved out of the war that would have been it right there.

If the Japanese had licensed even the German 75mm at guns let alone the infamous 88s, Panthers, Tigers even just PzIVs, let alone Panzerfausts or panzershreks, infamous snorkel Type21 Uboat technology, radars, sonars etc, it would have been a very different war.

Even your mention of the J8m Shusui copy of the Me163 never saw action because Hitler refused to release it's license till it was too late. And to be fair to the Japanese, the Kikka was in fact an all-Japanese design, but yet again, if Hitler wanted to, he could have helped the Japanese produce jet or other aircraft Germany had 3 years prior to Japan's surrender.

No, if Japan and Germany were really sincerely sharing technology and equipment both sides would've wielded very different equipment from eachother's drawing boards.

Hitler wasn't going to just give Japan his 'best stuff', if they wanted it, they had to attack the Soviet Union. He had already sacrificed too much foolishly declaring war on America when FDR didn't have the support to declare war on him even after Pearl Harbor. Hitler only authorized the release of an outdated taste of what Japan could enjoy if they would only join the Axis in attacking Russia. It was only as he saw the end coming that he agreed to authorize the release of his best stuff if only in revenge.

Again, our concern is the mis-leading nature of the way these articles focus on some facts and hide even outright omit other facts in their shadow. It's not just that the Japanese didn't cooperate with the Germans as well as we did, it is literally that both the Soviet Union and the Japanese, just like the United States of America before Hitler declared war on it, considered the 2 wars to be separate actions, distinctly separate wars. But that's not how these articles make it sound.

We come across as so hypocritical to say "we declared war based upon defending Polish Sovereignty", when in fact we gave it up and more.

We come across as so hypocritical to say "we fought against violation of international law and aggression" when in fact from December 1941 on, we were encouraging the Soviet Union to do exactly the same thing against Japan. We actually rewarded the Soviet Union for invading our original ally by letting them take away twice as much of Poland as it got from Germany and hand over Poland to a Stalin rather than a Hitler.
So what did we declare war on Germany for again?
Another point totally fogged over in these articles too.

I'm glad we beat Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese militarists. However, whenever I teach in another country or ask immigrant students who wanted to come here, why the world dis-trusts even hates us, these type of articles and arrogant 'only others tell propaganda' are a common theme. And that's from those who want to become us no less.

Believe me, as a teacher it is alot easier to just say "The Second World War was where we the 'allies' defeated the 'axis' aggressors'." Makes our job alot easier, simple, black and white, easy for the kids to remember on a test. However that over-simplicity, 'black and white', 'them and us' start to finish, is inaccurate and hypocritical.

You know how your kids got to an age when they accused you as a parent of always 'do as I say, not as I do?', well, teaching Social Studies and History has gotten that way too. All the more so since Iraq in fact.

I don't see what the problem is with wanting the article to more clearly point out that even the United States of America saw the 2 wars as separate wars and that's why even after declaring war on Japan, the USA refused to declare war on Germany and Italy and their Axis. Even after Hitler thankfully stupidly declared war on the US in vain hopes Japan would return the favor vs Russia, both the USSR and Japan continued to view them as 2 separate conflicts. That implying the war was simply 'axis vs allies' start to finish is over-simplistic and historically inaccurate. That's not being ignorant nor unpatriotic, it's being accurate I think.

Instead, the 'axis vs allies' highlight of these articles comes across as if there were 2 distinct, unwavering, determined opposing camps start to finish.

The last author just before this calling me or someone ignorant, does make some very good points though,... such as the German and Italian submarines re-supplying at Japanese naval-bases in the Indian Ocean. But to be more accurate, they did so at Portuguese Timor and other ports as well and the Japanese made it a point to make sure that no German/Italian warships or submarines acted against Russian shipping in the Pacific. Another example of telling only half the story.

Neither the USSR nor Japan wanted the other leasing bases to their enemies. The USSR needed Japan to let American-Canadian-lend-lease and trade through to Siberia to fight Germany and Japan needed the USSR to promise not to lease the Anglo-Americans bases in range of Japan. That's how important hearing "the rest of the story" is, and why we criticise these articles for focusing too much on one half of the story.Befuddler (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 12:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind, agree with critics

I used to go along with this ‘Axis=Germany, Japan, Italy and them’ and ‘Allies=Britain, France, Poland, USA and all’. But then when I read this guys’ article and his responses to criticism, I got to rethinking things especially when reading his own links of all things.

I gotta agree with you all, this article does come across as a biased representation of that history.

Assuming that the links he uses record the word for word verbatum agreements, then I see a couple of problems right off.

First, he’s using the Atlantic Charter, which refers to the Atlantic Conference, as not only the proof of our official use of terms related to the word ‘Allied’(as in 'Inter-Allied Council' here, I know, that's an adjective or verb not a noun) but as it’s founding principles as well. And that’s where this guy actually lost me to the critics.

Read them all yourself, but briefly the Atlantic Conference was an agreement in principle by the Brits and Yanks to defend the status quo and defend everyone’s pre-war sovereignties.

Then when you critics point out we didn't stand by those principles, this author actually demeans you all saying 'those details and definitions don't matter'.

The Atlantic Charter was the official recognition by Britain and her exiled-allies to agree to those principles as the foundation of their alliance. The kicker here is that 6 months before Pearl Harbour, while promising the Americans at home he would keep them out of all foreign wars, Roosevelt sounds off against Germany like that idiot in Tehran sounds off against Israel today. We sure as hell would call this provocational today.

1. The Atlantic Conference of August 14th 1941, where Roosevelt admittedly commits in writing to the desired destruction of the Nazis.

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

But to me, that’s nothing compared to the rest of this. Listen up.

But here is where the author wants to have his cake and eat it too. In the Atlantic Charter, while it implies moral but not official support by the Americans, it does say that the USSR is declared to be a member. What a joke.

The article’s author wants us to believe in the ideals of the ‘Atlantic Charter’ as the foundation of our ‘Allies’ alliance while including membership of the Soviet Union at the same time! Incredible!

The author wants us to believe the Soviet Union considered itself bound by the terms of the Atlantic Charter regarding respect for sovereignty of all nations no matter how small and then this same author dismisses historical fact that even before Germany invaded it, it violated new fewer than 5 of its own neutrality/non-aggression pacts signed with neighbours. Then he dismisses what happened in the end resulting in the Cold War and loss of sovereignty and freedom of self-determination of hundreds of millions of people.

He claims he isn’t American, well he sure isn’t a patriot from Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Rumania, Japan even Turkey(who was neutral from Pete’s sake). Not to mention the ‘iron curtain’ and Warsaw Pact. Hell, I just reached the page in this book teach got us reading that says Roosevelt would suppport whoever was losing between Stalin and Hitler and Roosevelt himself didn’t believe in pacts.

Boris Slavinsky. Page 15 “Roosevelt replied by telling the Soviet ambassador on 29 June 1937 ‘I have no faith in pacts. The main guarantee is a strong Navy…let’s see if the Japanese can win a maritime competition.’ The more I’m trying to prove to myself the author of this article is right the more I’m finding stuff to agree with the critics. Damn.

His obvious indifference to the loss of sovereignty of millions against the claims of the ideals of our ‘Alliance’ does imply a definate bias, I agree.

Like Japan. He quotes where Japan agrees to accept the USSR as part of the ‘Allies’ as referred to in the Potsdam Declaration, yet leaves out why, in reality, to this day, even I know Japan and Russia have never ratified the peace treaty ending ww2.

I quote the Russian historian Boris Slavinsky in regards his own research that would seem to support the criticism of this article’s selective slant on history.

When Roosevelt promised Stalin the return of Russian territory lost to Japan by war they again let him get away with violating what they claimed were the basic foundations of the our ‘Allies vs Axis’ conflict in the first place.

“In particular, they not only acquiesced in his recovering everything that had been lost in 1904-5, but light-heartedly accepted his claim on the entire Kurile Island chain which, unlike Korea, Formosa or Southern Sakhalin, Japan had not acquired by war. The three islands and a group of islets closest to Hokkaido had never been Russian, the rest had been recognised as Russian only from 1855-1875. Russia then ceded them to Japan in exchange for Japan’s relinquishing its claim to Sakhalin. Inclusion of the South Kuriles among Stalin’s gains added to his violation of the Neutrality pact and detention of Japanese prisoners of war for anything up to 10 years after the end of the war and created in Japan a sense of victimisation which has lasted to this day. Fifty-eight years after the war’s end, there is still no formal peace treaty between Japan and Russia.”

So damn right I agree with even that Rusky historian that this slant on history is totally wrong and that word hypocritical. I agree, we can’t go and say our Alliance was based upon where this author starts our use of the term ‘Allied or Allied Council’ when we outright encourage the violation of those same principles.

And another thing. I read all those links the author put up there and while I do see the term ‘Allied’ quoted to mean either British/American OR in some cases USSR only instead(clearly a violation of the Atlantic Charter), but I notice that they do not, in fact, use the term ‘Axis’ in those surrender documents.

I always agreed with the terms ‘Axis and Allies’ until I actually read up on this more, and now, especially with this author’s laissez-fair(however you spell that) attitude towards turning our backs on the very principles our alliance claimed it was founded upon only make me see this article all the more biased the way it’s written, especially about Japan, but to be fair, to Finland(who Russia attacked BEFORE allied to Germany), let alone condoning Russian’s violation of no fewer than 5 non-aggression and neutrality pacts, or his apathetic attitude to the Poles especially.

You are right, this representation of history made even me forget why the ‘Allies’ went to war with Germany in the first place and this author’s rebuttal to those comments on international sovereignty and rule of law only makes me change my mind more towards the teach here.

You are either committed to the principles of sovereignty and self-determination and against violation of international treaties and agreements, or you aren’t. I’ve even changed my mind about calling anyone but Germany and Italy part of the ‘Axis’ let alone Japan, since reading the author’s own surrender documents he uses to prove the USSR was supposedly a member of our ‘Allies’ based upon the Atlantic Conference and Charters’.Clousseau 21:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Useless Debate

Your first line is objectively and empircally unproveable and from then on, as the other critics pointed out, you continue to cherry pick quotes and sources.

Even your latest quotes of Matsuoka you conveniently fail to point out they were exactly why he was ousted from his position, exactly why the Konoye and the cabinet resigned just to get rid of him and those inexplicable complete reversals of a man who for the longest time tried to promote alliance with the Soviet Union. But, as always, you conveniently only tell part of the story, leaving out the rest.

I could go through books quoting where the Japanese felt the more immediate priority of the Tripartite Pact was relations with the Soviet Union, but the very fact you leave out the Neutrality Pact completely proves further debate with you is fruitless. You are obviously determined to represent our propagandized view on the subject.

Even all the lists of you mentioning of this or that Japanese admiration for the 'Axis' still does not change the fact that the Japanese leadership did not, not even Tojo, signed any documentation agreeing to the term to describe Japan.

Even the Oxford dictionary has changed the definition, which surprised me when students pointed it out, and the whole hypocrisy of this representation of history and supposed reasons for war and foundations of principles of international law,... as Boris Slavinsky pointed out.

Have it your own way. Wikipedia lets you tell only half(if that) the story and mis-represent historical fact to continue to promote what others here have also noted as a 'pro-us/we' version of non 'us/we' topics.

This is exactly the attitude that has some of our leaders still insisting Iraq was behind 9/11 and building WMDs. Refusal to read or listen to anything one doesn't want to hear/read. Mind already made up.

You've only convinced me why the schoolboards don't consider these articles as objective and empirical and we and our students efforts here fruitless. I believe I am the last teacher here in our area to even try lol. Test over, they were right, I was wrong. Participation ends.Befuddler (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tripartite_Pact/Archive_1&oldid=390272293"