Talk:Axis powers

Finland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change the article style

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

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

Remove "Axis autonomous territories"?

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

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

Norway

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

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

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

Soviet Union

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Axis autonomous territories again

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

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

India: Bose disambiguation

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

singapore and malaysia under japanese occupation

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

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

Axis Powers

Hey what are they all about? I need to know for my reading project ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.138.43 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Axis Powers

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

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

Racism and anti-semitism sections

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

Puppet sections

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

"Other" instead of "Co-Belligerents"

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

Yugoslavia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any statements sourced from the book by Phillip Cohen should be stricken, that is, only if you want this page to be free of cheap propaganda. Anybody with a brain and a pair of eyes can skim the first page of that garbage on Amazon. Nuff said.