Talk:Axis powers

Disproportionate amount of information

No really, even without swearing (sorry about that), not only that you refuse to call the Axis in the native names of ALL it's members, and make this painful segregation that nobody needs or wants, between "major" and "minor" (It really doesn't matter, they were all sovereign members of the alliance and signed the pact), but you also largely neglect their history and how they came to be part of the Axis and contributions! You can write about Romania and Hungary each as much as you did for Germany, if you would really care. But you don't because they "don't matter". Let me tell you something: Hungary practically created the Axis (came with the idea for it) while Romania powered it! There would have been no Eastern Front without Romanian oil! These two at least, were just as important as the main 3! In fact, I dare say that Romania was even more important than Italy, at least Romania was never made a German puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.123.74 (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

do many historians make these strange claims? Not that I have seen. It's best to start with some solid books (eg Gerhard L. Weinberg, A world at arms: A global history of World War II Cambridge University Press, 1995.) and follow their line of argument. Rjensen (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

But they don't care...Why you research only historians from the West when dealing with countries from the East? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.123.74 (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable sources from anywhere by all means quote them. Britmax (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

How about the words of Hitler himself? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8raDPASvq0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.123.74 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the fact that Hitler thought the oil fields important does not make Romania an important member of the Axis. Britmax (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC).

And, even if you want to ignore that, Deletant notes: "Romania retained her sovereignty throughout the period of the alliance [with Nazi Germany]. [...] Antonescu had, of course, his own country's interests uppermost in his mind, but in following Hitler, he served the Nazi cause."[269] He describes Romania's contribution to the war as that of "a principal ally of Germany", as opposed to a "minor Axis satellite." Also according to Hitler, if you actually bothered to check the link I posted, Hitler essentially implies that no Romania in the Axis equals no Eastern Front. And as the Eastern Front was the main front of the war, and Romania was the base of it's existence, I just don't know why you don't accept the fact that Romania was major. Because it was. It really, really was. Also, as your article blatantly states, Hungary essentially created the Axis, at least at the concept level. And what is the worst, is that, for 50 days, there actually was the name of all the Axis members written in the infobox. But, apparently, someone thought that that little bit of respect and consideration was "too much", that it was not "constructive contribution", that it was "disrupting". Yeah, apparently, being fair and just to everyone's implication and contribution is "disrupting" and "unconstructive" all of a sudden! Look, I don't think that I'm absurd, that I'm asking for the impossible here, when all I ask is for you to acknowledge that the Axis meant more than the Tripartite Pact. "Minor" or not, their contribution was crucial. If not anything, then at least revert to the previous version, with 7 native names.

Germany, Italy and Japan were considered major powers within the Axis, while others were not. When Hitler discussed the global spheres of influence, he discussed it with Italy and Japan, not with Romania, Hungary etc.. The Tri-Partite Pact was so named because of the 3 major signatories, and its name was not changed after the inclusion of the other states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.211 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And here's why Romania and Bulgaria dumped the Axis, among other reasons. "If we don't even exist for you, then why should we help you?" Also, "major" does not equal "only", "minor" does not equal "non-existent". Why can't you understand that?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.123.74 (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that minor=non-existent, or major=only, except yourself in your quote. 120.21.208.45 (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Still, you could say MUCH more at the sections of Romania, Hungary and even Bulgaria! You didn't go into detail, why they did it, how they did it, about their financial resources, industry, goals! And that's why you are racist pieces of shit! It doesn't matter that they were not Great Powers, do you hear? It doesn't, freakin, matter! They were sovereign members of the alliance, as in joined by their own will, just like the main 3!

That's a pretty fascist and uneducated way of making a comment. Whoever disagrees with your delusional points, i.e. basically everyone except yourself, is a "racist xxxxxxx". Though, it's always funny to see how desperately a ultranationalist and fascist yells and barks to exaggerate the role played by his country to satisfy the pathetic little ego. Romania is a respectful and beautiful country but here she is doubly disgraced by exaggerating her role in the group of defeated fascist regimes known as the Axis, and by somebody so rude and disgusting ostensibly speaking on her behalf. 120.21.207.50 (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Norway

Norway should be included as a client state. (213.122.144.241 (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC))

Sorry, whose client state and based on what reliable source? Britmax (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Norway was a German client state under Vidkun Quisling from 1940 to 1945. (165.120.184.91 (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC))

Requested move 29 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, almost unanimity (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Axis powers → Axis Power – I have no particular rationale for Axis Power, I just prefer it. That being said, just pick one between the two options, please. The capitalization in this article is confusing. Fumiko Take (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Fumiko Take: Please add some rationale to your request. Though, with this said, I support moving this to Axis Powers. (with the s and caps) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is not just one axis power. Billboard Man (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – The current lowercase/plural powers is the only one that makes sense. See books n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Axis powers" (or "the Axis powers") is the form commonly found in source material. The nominator's rationale does not outweigh this. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There was never such a thing as "Axis Power", as it consisted of several countries with all their own - and sometimes conflicting - agendas. And the sources usually mention those countries as "Axis powers". The Banner talk 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spanish involvement sector

The following contents were added by me over Spanish involvement, then removed by Britmax citing Facebook should not be used as RS: 1. Blue Squadron 2. Kriegsmarine U-boats operating in Spain 3. Spanish vessels and crews employed to supply DAK Of these, only 3rd is sourced from Facebook, while others are not. So, I've decided to recover the deleted contents. For the 3rd issue, it was also mentioned in the book Tanker und Versorger der deutschen Flotte which has photos of 2 of the Spanish freighters used, however I can't remember the pages. 120.21.67.64 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Further thoughts and questions on Romania

First of all, why when Romania helps Germany win a battle its an "Axis victory", but when talking about the Axis itself Romania is almost never mentioned? Why when Germany aids another country it is notable (sometimes to the point of being central topic, despite German involvement being little) but when Germany receives help from others it's negligible or barely mentioned? Why the main argument to keep Romania in the "little bunch" is the fact that Germany did not discuss sharing of the world with Romania, while discussion is nearly nothing compared to actual on-the-field military involvement, which Romania very much did? Why is Romania called "an unimportant member of the Axis", while it led operations, took important/hero cities, led army groups and had it's own occupied Soviet territories? Why diplomatic and political talk with the other main 2 Axis leaders is more important than the military consultation and discussions Hitler had with Romania's leader alone, of all foreign allies? Why Romania's ascension into the Axis hierarchy after the surrender of Italy is never mentioned or adressed? Is the puppet Italian state, with a navy smaller than Bulgaria's, more important than a sovereign and committed ally like Romania, which effectively dethroned Italy as the third Axis country by the end of 1943? And finally, why is Romania's section in this article so almost insultingly short? It genuinely looks like the editor was like: "Meh, I'll just write the essence, not much details, who's gonna care anyway?" Well, I care. Conclusion: I do not mean to say Romania was one of "the big ones", but at the same time, putting Romania in the same bunch with all the "lesser" German allies, after all it achieved, is also inaccurate. And one final question: Can I please be allowed to edit Romania's section? I can expand it greatly, all is sourced from books and I will make no unsourced assertion. I really do care about improving the section, and thus I request permission to edit it. 82.77.76.94 (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Romania is where it belongs, a minor member of the Axis i.e. not Germany, Italy or Japan. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Britmax (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I still improve the section? As I said, I got surces and all. A bit more detail on the country's leader and it's industrial and military capacities should do good 82.77.76.94 (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Please check my edit, I'd like to know what you think of it. 82.77.76.94 (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a genuine question: Why is this segregation between "major" and "minor" necessary? What benefits does it bring to anyone? 82.77.76.94 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Question for the OP: are they in any way associated with User:Romanian-and-proud? K.e.coffman (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Why? 82.77.76.94 (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Because this conversation seems similar to this one Talk:Black_Sea_campaigns_(1941–44)#IP edits and some of the IPs seem close in range to 82.77.76.94. If this is not the same editor, then I suggest registering for an account so that such questions do not arise. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow...what a troll. Speaking of questions though, mine was still not answered: why is the segregation between "major" and "minor" powers necessary? In my opinion, it does nothing productive for anyone, it may encourage people to not even read about the "minor" countries because the term makes them seem negligible and ignorable. And I have personal experience with that, I have met people interested in WW2 that did not even know Romania participated in the war, ~1 million soldiers, dozens of battles, they weren't aware of any of that. 82.77.76.94 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Pls see WP:NOTAFORUM. Recommend again registering for an account. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, why is Wikipedia so anti-originality? I don't get it. 82.77.76.94 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a collection of existing information, and as such is not the place for "originality". Please find a forum or a blog if that is the way you wish to go. Britmax (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Axis Powers, not Axis powers

Every book I've ever read on World War II calls the alliance the Axis Powers. Germany, Italy and Japan were all major powers. (Lsnkd (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC))