Talk:Axis powers

Portugal

Nowhere have I seen any mention of Portugese aid to Hitlerite Germany in WWII, and I even saw Portugal listed on the ALLIES for crying out loud. Portugal was a major "neutral" supporter of the Facists, and like Spain it provided intelligence, voulanteers, and equipment to Germany. As such, I feel that we must FORCE Salazarist Portugal to stand up and be counted along with its fellow "neutral" Facist Francoist Spain. ELV

Issue

I think it's a real problem that the number of murdered people in the Jasenovac concentration camp numbers 30-100,000, when the Jasenovac Concentration camp article on wiki speaks of hundreds of thousands. Up to 3/4's of a million with some sources. Anyone care to fix that once it's unlocked? Thanks 24.66.94.140 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now requested that the article be unprotected again as we have agreed on a section about Denmark. The information in this article certainly needs to correspond to the information found in related articles. You are welcome to change it yourself once the article has been unprotected. Also, be sure to include the source of your numbers. Thank you. MartinDK 11:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We can all feel justifiably proud of the way this turned out. This is exactly how Wikipedia talk pages were intended to work. If you read through the evolution of this issue here, you find people having heated disagreements (really heated, to the point of name-calling and temporary bans), which gradually build to a consensus, and finally the article gets a valuable addition, in this instance the "case of Denmark" section. Bravo! -Amatulic 16:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We can certainly feel proud. Also, I have learned a lot from this including how to handle such disagreements in a productive way. By bringning more people here and working on a balanced and well-sourced addition to the article we turned an ugly discussion into a collaboration that within a few days produced what I consider to be perhaps the most well-written and sourced part of the article. If we could only apply the same methology to the rest of the article I am sure this important article could turn out really well. When I first visited this article about two months ago it was a mess with two people having a discussion about the status of Finland. Today it is a collaborative project aimed at improving the entire article. This is what makes Wikipedia great. People coming together to work on things they are passionate about and experienced editors like you and others showing people like me how things should be handled and done. MartinDK 17:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed nice to see things turning out this way. Creating and maintaining conflicts and myths is all too easy. Trying to find out what exactly happend at a certain point in time is often a lot more difficult than people normally think. This is what makes history both incredibly frustrating but also incredibly interesting. The task is even worse when you are dealing with an issue which can still stir up powerful emotions. Denmark seems pretty well covered now. Let's hope the rest of the article will be raised to a similar standard. Let the past speak for itself. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Further required editing

I think the article is starting to look good now. The overall structure of the article seems to fit the consensus here and it is already very long now. I think we should focus getting more sources added and fix whatever errors there may be in the text as it is now. I definately think that we should be critical of what is already in the article but I think the most urgent problem is getting the unreferenced tag removed. Of course that is just my opinion :-) MartinDK 15:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that much of the text doesn't need references because it's well-known history. There should probably be at least one reference per section, however. If you have a history book about WWII, there's nothing wrong with referencing a book rather than an online source. =Axlq 04:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As you will be able to see from the discussion about Denmark the information very much depends on your sources and not all sources are equally authorative. Also, how do you define "well-known"? How do you tell myth from truth without sources? That would apply to most of Wikipedia in which case we might as well skip sources all together since Wikipedia is not intended for original research. And I hardly think thats the way neither of us wants Wikipedia to turn out. The reason we need sources is so we can verify the information, use the sources to settle disputes and value the quality of the information in the article. If the information is "well-known" the surely you must be able to find lots of sources we can add? MartinDK 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Spain & Vichy France

I see that another section about Spain was added. We have discussed this before and there was a clear consensus that Spain did not belong in the article.

However, I will not revert it (yet) as I don't want to start another edit/revert war. So should we agree to use the same method as we did with Denmark and work on a section about Spain together? I think it turned out pretty well last time.MartinDK 07:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't realise that you had already discussed this matter. I do find it a bit inconsistent to include DK but not Spain though. Our basis for Dk collaboration seems to be based on its recognition of Axis puppets, joining the Comintern, and creating a corps to fight alongside the Nazi armies. All are things that Spain also did. Peregrine981 16:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats ok. Any interest in this article is welcome and the discussion had been archived. I´do think that it would be a good idea to include what I consider borderline cases like Denmark and Spain. If nothing else then to prevent someone else from adding nonsense about these countries. It would be nice if we could just add small sections like the one about Denmark for each of the countries whose contributions makes them harder to judge than clear cut cases like Norway. I think we should wait and see if more people show interest over the next few days. If they do we can start a discussion about it otherwise we should just let your edit stay in the article and let people make small corrections and additions along the way. MartinDK 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those borderline countries should be mentioned, otherwise there will be never ending dispute about adding and deleteing them. Maybe there should be one special section("Axis supporters" or "Controversial cases" or whatever) for disputable cases like Spain, Denmark, USSR. Putting them all under collaborators seems strange in cases like Spain. (Staberinde 19:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

Collaborator states was originally created only to contain Vichy France. The title was a quick solution and in retrospect I can see why it might not be the best name. We have actually discussed the idea of a "satelite states" section before. However, my only objection to that is that I atill think Vichy France should be treated apart from Denmark for example. There was a clear difference in the passion and eager by which the two governments tried to please the Germans. Maybe we should find a better name than collaborator for Vichy France and put it in its own section and then create a new section for countries like Denmark and Spain. That would fit the solution we came up with for Finland which is also in its own section. MartinDK 06:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

With reference to the above discussion here is the position I put forward during a previous discussion of the subject;

Spain should not be included in this article in any form whatsoever because it was not a member, nor a creation of the Axis. It was officially neutral, whatever sympathies Franco may have expressed. The Blue Division was a formation of volunteers, withdrawn from Russia in 1943 after Allied objections. It's presence in Russia was a minimal return for the millions of marks Spain owed to Germany for assistance during the Civil War; but when Hitler asked for a more direct contribution to the war-particularly with regard to a planned Axis assault on Gibraltar-Franco refused.

I agree with Martin about not wishing to begin another revert war, but it is best that the position be made clear, with the hope that some consensus may emerge.

It might be of interest to note that there was a point, in the autumn of 1940, when the entry of Spain on the Axis side was a strong possibility. Franco was eager, but his demands for both war materials and subsidies-and his ambitions with regard to French colonial territory in Africa-was too much for Hitler to contemplate. Paul Preston's biography of Franco contains some useful information on this subject. White Guard 23:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that and we both tried to keep Denmark out of it as well. However, it does seem that the majority here wants to add a section about these countries so rather than continue to resist I have tried to influence it so that at least it doesn't become unbalanced and full of facts put there out of context. As long as what is in the article is in accordance with the truth I prefer to keep my friends close and my enemies even closer.... :) That way at least we get to decide what is being written about these countries that people keep adding anyway. Also, by reporting the facts maybe we can help debunk some of the myths about co-operation with the Nazis. Again.... I agree totally with you but the sad fact is that we would have to keep the page permanently protected if we wanted to keep these countries out of the article. So let's try to influence what is being written instead. The good thing about the last revert war was that the article finally got some attention ;) MartinDK 04:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Vichy was not an axis power, and was, in fact, still at war with the Axis powers throughout existences (although hostilities had ceased due to an armistice). It also engaged in warfare against the Allies, at least between 1940 and 1942, but this was never in conjunction with Axis troops, so far as I'm aware. It seems to me that this page ought to only discuss the main Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) and clear co-belligerents (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, maybe Siam, maybe Slovakia). Puppet states and awkward cases can be discussed in some other context. john k 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Vichy was still at war with the Axis? Hardly! In fact, the German use of Vichy airfields was the pretext for the Allied invasion of Syria. The Vichy ability and propensity to assist the Axis was shown when the Japanese used bases in Vichy-controlled Vietnam to invade Malaya and Thailand. Japanese submarines gave significant assistance to Vichy forces in Madagascar in 1942. Grant65 | Talk 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're missing the point; John k is technically correct. France and Germany had only signed an armistice-a cessation of hostilities-in 1940, which meant a formal state of war still existed. This would only have been ended by a full peace treaty. Think of the contemporary situation on the Korean peninsula-both parts are still officially at war after an armistice signed over fifty years ago. Vichy France did aid and assist the Germans in one way or another; but that is a quite different issue. White Guard 05:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)::

What a crock! VF was an abject state which did everything asked of it by the Nazis. Does the following sound like the North Korea-South Korea situation?

The French Army was reduced to an "Armistice Army" of 100,000 soldiers and French prisoners of war would remain in captivity. The French had to pay the occupation costs of the German troops and prevent any French people from leaving the country.

France was also required to turn over to German custody anyone within the country whom the Germans demanded. Within French deliberations, this was singled out as a potentially "dishonorable" term, since it would require France to hand over persons who had entered France seeking refuge from Germany. Attempts to negotiate the point with Germany were unsuccessful, and the French decided not to press the issue to the point of refusing the Armistice, though they hoped to ameliorate the requirement in future negotiations with Germany after the signing."

(Excerpt from Vichy France.) Grant65 | Talk 07:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For the love of God calm down and try to think coherently! I did not say that the situation in Korea was like that of France, merely attempting to illustrate the clear difference between a technical state of war and full peace. France was a defeated nation, hence the terms of the cessation of hostilities were all the more severe. Nevertheless, France and Germany were still, in both dipolomatic and legal terms, in a state of war after the armistice of 1940. Most of the French soldiers who were taken in the previous campaign, for instance, remained in captivity as prisoners of war up to the German defeat in 1945. But your puerile use of language and hysteria provides me with a clear insight into your obvious lack of intellectual maturity. I do not engage in debate with silly little boys, so I have no more to say to you on this or any other issue. White Guard 07:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hysteria? Whatever. Grant65 | Talk 08:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure what is going on here. Vichy France was a defeated power. It was still in a technical state of war with Germany, but there was an armistice (on very unfavorable terms to France) which had ended active hostilities. The Armistice required that France do various things to aid the German war effort, and various politicians within France (notably Laval, but others as well) wished to more actively collaborate with the Germans in hopes of lightening the armistice terms and perhaps getting some reward for helping out the eventual "victors" (and, in some cases, out of ideological sympathy for Nazism, although I don't think Laval himself should be accused of this). The French government was also forced to agree to Japanese occupation of Indochina, which it was not in any position to resist. The actual existing cooperation with the Axis, and the fear that it might go further, led the Allies (British and, later, Americans) into various aggressive actions against Vichy (e.g. Mers el Kebir, Dakar, Syria, Madagascar), culminating in the Operation Torch landings in French North Africa in November 1942. This led to the German occupation of all of metropolitan France, leaving the Vichy regime essentially powerless. The Vichy regime cooperated in some limited ways with the Germans, but they were not a German ally. Those who wished to make Vichy into a German ally were largely ignored by the Germans, who had no interest in letting the French become a German ally. Various important Vichy figures (most notably General Weygand) were quite anti-German, and there was a strong faction within the Vichy government who opposed more active collaboration with the Germans, and merely wished to keep to the armistice terms. The French fleet at Toulon was scuttled rather than handed over to the Germans in 1942, notably, which is the action of a country still at war with an invading country, not of a client state towards its master. john k 11:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that Nazi coercion was overriding in mainland France. That represents a state which had surrendered in all but name. The Vichy authorities in West Africa, Madagascar and Indochina did not take the chance of becoming Free French, as other French territories had done. I think the Japanese would have hesitated to attack/bully a Free French regime in Indochina, at least until they were ready to attack Pearl Harbor. I would also note that at least one submarine from Toulon did not obey Laborde's orders to scuttle and joined the Free French at Algiers. Grant65 | Talk 18:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweden

OK I see now that Sweden of all places was added. And the section is even placed in Minor Powers with a very POV text. I have tried to be very very flexible when it comes to what we should include in the article but this is getting ridiculous. If we cannot agree that this article should at least be kept to the core of the subject then I am afraid we can start all over again soon because it is being rapidly depreceated. On the other hand that would be giving in to the critics of Wikipedia. I am not quite sure what to do now. Do we simply revert these weird edits or do we request semi-protection or what do we do? MartinDK 12:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is downright misleading to label Sweden as a "minor Axis power" when it was officially neutral. A compromise solution could be to create a new section for officially neutral countries - and state that they were officially neutral - that provided some assistance to the Axis, either because of threat of force or voluntarily and surreptitiously. References should also be provided to back up these claims (preferably not websites). Gsd2000 12:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Factually inaccurate" would be a mild term for this classification. For the time being, I have reverted this addition. Without clear-cut legalistic and historiographical standards articles like this will become complete rubbish. Sweden was definitely *not* a member of the Axis and the text was not even close to neutral. How about somebody found, say 3-5 encyclopedias and checked their definitions of this group? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to the Royal Library here in Copenhagen on Monday to research the resistance group Holger Danske. I will see if I can find some authorative sources that we can use. This is what the article looked like when I first stopped by here 2 months ago http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Axis_Powers&oldid=66336465. If this continues then it is going to end up just as bad again. So yes, we need better sources so that we can settle this one once and for all. MartinDK 13:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweden?? This is getting really hard to take seriously! You may remember, Martin, that in a previous polemic I raised the case of Sweden-in a spirit of irony-to try to undercut a dangerously unsatisfactory set of propositions. I also mentioned Switzerland as a possible Axis collaborator because it was forced to obey German black-out regulations! So, I will not be surprised to see the Swiss-and possibly even the Portuguese-in the 'Axis Collaborator' section (and what about the British Channel Islands?) I also said previously that it might be best to reduce the whole article to a hard core of Axis powers only-otherwise it would seem that virtually anything goes (Ireland?) White Guard 22:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

PS What about the Soviet Union from 1939-1941? A very important source of raw material for the German war effort. White Guard 02:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember that White Guard. I also advocated for a long time that the article should only contain the three actual axis powers and those who by the strictest definition of a puppet state, which I provided, could be classified as puppets. And basically that is still my opinion but I have tried to be forthcoming especially about Denmark because a) I realize that the situation may seem confusing to outsiders who do not understand the motives and the internal struggle in Denmark at the time and b) by providing the section ourselves we would be able to influence what was being written rather than revert everytime someone adds their own nonsense.

But it is a dangerous path as we just saw with Sweden and to some degree Spain. And I totally understand your point about this article becoming another anything-goes Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not an endless list of every fact known to mankind nor is it a tool for people to distort history. This is why I have said before that this article needs more sources. And I will try to collect some of those on Monday when I am going to the Royal Library here in Copenhagen. By being able to cite more sources we would have a much better case when we revert edits that may seem more plausible at first than the Sweden edit. This in my opinion is better than having to protect the article everytime someone stubborn enough decides to add nonsense to the article. If the article already contains enough sources and information to debunk those edits then hopefully that would keep people from adding more nonsense or at least make it more apparent to everyone that they are wrong. Many articles here suffer from that exact problem and are constantly being protected. I don't want that, I want us to be able to work on the article on a continuous basis rather than having to pause and debate here everytime something new is added to the article.

But that does not imply that anything can be added to the article everytime someone wants to do so. We need to be able to clearly identify what belongs here and what doesn't and to do so we need more references.

Once we have added more sources and rewritten especially the introduction in such a way that it becomes completely obvious what belongs here and what doesn't I will be willing to discuss if we should remove Denmark. But for now I think it is helpful to inform people of the situation in Denmark at the time so that we can hopefully avoid any misconceptions about Denmark's attitude towards Nazi Germany. Basically we need to outsmart those who wants to add POV nonsense to the article.MartinDK 15:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia, the Iron Guard and the Nasjonal Samlung

Hi, unless this article is already becoming too large to manage, I have some suggestions for what I believe is very relevant information to the Axis Powers. First of all Ethipia became an Italian puppet state in 1936, after the Second Italo-Abyssinian War (1935-36), and yet it is not included in the Italian puppet state section. As you may know, it was occupied from 1936-1941. This was a major international crisis since it very blatantly showed the impotence of the League of Nations, after Haile Selassie made his call for action before their assembly. Also, no mention is made of the Iron Guard which assisted General Antonescu in coming to power in Romania, even though they attempted to overthrow him and were ultimately defeated after their attempted military coup in 1941. Less importantly, I thought that since Denmark was included as an "unofficial Axis Power?" that Vidkum Quisling and his Nasjonal Samlung party in Norway might make a worthy mention, as it is probably the most infamous and brutal (Stapo and Hird) collaborationist governments of the war, besides perhaps Vichy France. Norway also played a critical role in importing precious iron ore from Sweden to Germany through much of the war.Kaiser.20 18:55, 02 October 2006 (UTC)

Some points of information.

1. Ethiopia did not become a 'puppet state' but officially part of the Italian Empire, with King Victor Emmanuel III as Emperor.

2. The Iron Guard did not assist Antonescu to power: he was appointed Prime Minister by King Carol. He subsequently invited the Guard to join his government in September 1940, but then suppressed the movement the following January.

3. Quisling was 'prime minister' of Norway in name only. All executive power lay with Josef Terboven, Reichskommisar for Norway. I have maintained, and continue to maintain, that Denmark was an occupied country-a victim of the Nazis-and not a collaborator state.

White Guard 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion, I was not sure how you defined "puppet state." My understanding of a "puppet state" was that it made no difference whether occupation authorities were administering the country directly as long as there was a seemingly separate collaborationist government present, typically with its own army or police force, even just to create the facade that the country is independent. I also did not believe it mattered whether the country was occupied by foreign troops either. I believe Norway is unique in that it is one of the only occupied countries to have a separate government, with its own emblem and police force (stapo and hird.)As to Denmark, I was not sure how to label it, as it has an interesting history with regard to Nazi Germany. I see it almost as a combination of occupied country/collaborationist state, although I understand why you defined it as an occupied country. Returning to my confusion over how you defined puppet state, I noticed that Albania was included as an Italian puppet state, even though King Victor Emmanuel III was coronated as emperor of Albania.

To be honest with you I'm not sure how it has been defined either, not being present when the 'foundations' were laid, so to speak. You are right about Albania; that too was not a 'puppet state', but part of the Italian Empire. Actually, most of the occupied countries had one form or other of local 'government', even places like Serbia, Bohemia-Moravia and Belarus. The 'independence' of Serbia was probably more 'meaningful'-if that is the right word-than that of NorwayWhite Guard 05:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The term puppet state has a clear definition. A puppet state is a country whose government has been installed by a foreign power. It does not matter if the government consists of local people but to be a puppet it must have been installed againstr the will of the people and act in accordance with the wishes of the master government. A client state is a country where the government is not installed by a foregin power but through dependance or threats it is forced to collaborate. Denmark was a client state, Albania could in fact be labeled a puppet state if the King had not been able to maintain his power without the suppport of Italy. This is the definition by which we should determine who belongs here and in what section. Also, why was the article moved? I don't see any reason to mention axis powers and world war 2 in the same title. The Axis is unique to World War 2. Seems to me as if someone just had too much time at their hands... The very least this person could have done was discuss it first. Frankly I am starting to give up entirely on this since it doesn't really matter how much work we put in to it, someone else just comes along and changes it without talking about it first and there is nothing we can do. Most open source projects have designated committers for that very same reason. Maybe Wikipedia should implement a system like that so that every change would have to be discussed first.MartinDK 06:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that if a country is annexed then of course it cannot be considered a puppet and by no means a client since clients as well as puppets are officially independant states. Client states are usually easy to identify as it is generally considered an honest thing for a country to be in that situation. Finland was for a long time a client state of the Soviet Union. Puppets are usually more controversial as no one will willingly accept to be labeled a puppet of another country/people. As I mentioned above there is however a clear distinction between the two. MartinDK 07:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Change the Title Back

This is stupid. The term "Axis Powers" is unique to WWII (that's what people will automatically think of when hearing the term) and should be the title of this article.

On the contrary: I moved it because there are many other uses of axis, such as the Axis of evil. The new name also mirrors Allies of World War II. On a lesser note, it's against Wikipedia policy to use unnecssary capitalisation like "Powers", unless it's Austin Powers :-) Grant65 | Talk 10:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem here is that you didn't discuss it with the rest of us first. Even if you disagree with the point that the term is unique to WW2 you should have posted a comment here first so the rest of us could have discussed it with you. A better choice would have been Axis powers (World War II) and then let Axis powers simply list this article as well as Axis of evil. Not in any way a perfect solution in my opinion but at least a way to reach a consensus. Also, you didn't even change the link on the Axis article even though you obviously visited that article as well. MartinDK 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not required, especially when it is a clear-cut matter of Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)). I guess there are some articles with "(World War II)" as a qualifier. There are quite a few with "of World War II" as a qualifier. I don't really have an opinion on which is better. I have now fixed the link for axis. Grant65 | Talk 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Baltic states

Should we include Baltic states here?--Nixer 19:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems a bit odd to me. Stalin annexed them, so no Baltic administrations existed that could have joined the Axis. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Their independence was not revived after the Nazi invasion of Russia. All three were incorporated into the Reichskommissariat Ostland. White Guard 23:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact that existed. I read about a pro-Nazi government in Latvia that existed for a short time when German forces already retreated and Soviet not arrived yet.--Nixer 17:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pro Nazi? After the Germans retreated and with the Soviets at the gates? Even stupidity has limits. Anyway, even if there was, which I doubt, these suicidals could hardly be said to constitute an Axis state, or even a puppet state, in any meaningful sense.. White Guard 00:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was led by a pro-Nazi collaborator. I'll try to research the topic better. The intrigue is that the present-day government recognizes that government to be legitimate and positions themselves as its successors.--Nixer 00:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've made some research. It was Estonia, not Latvia. According to official Estonian point of view it was not liberation of Tallinn in 1944 by Soviet forces, but ovethrowing of legitimate government. It was organized by Jüri Uluots - the pre-war premier of the country and was led by Nazi collaborator Otto Tief. This government was supported by the Estonian SS legion and the day of its ovethrowning is declared the day of national mourning in present-day Estonia. Also members of 20th SS division officially recognized as fighters for independence of the country.--Nixer 00:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a long time ago I read the finer details about this story, but as far as I remember, Jüri Uluots (Prime Minister acting in the function of President, and very sick by cancer) basically asked Otto Tief to form a government in the feeble hope that the USSR would recognize Estonian independence when the Germans left. That attempt lasted less than one month. Unless either of them made active efforts to join the Axis by signing treaties with Hitler or something similar, such a categorization doesn't make sense to me. The Baltic peoples didn't love Hitler, but the NKVD had pretty clearly demonstrated in 1940-41 what Soviet rule implied, so it is quite correct that the Balts didn't see the USSR as liberators, but rather as the occupier it had been 1940-41. The "elections" proclaiming accession to the USSR had been a complete farce in all three countries and the NKVD's deportations etc. speaks pretty much for itself. For most Baltic people (except the Jews), Hitler would simply have been seen as the lesser evil, but that does not make the Baltic people Nazis per se. If we really want to split hairs, I'm not sure if Uluots even had the power to form a government in the first place. Konstantin Päts was still alive, although living in a Soviet prison. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In this [1] Estonian site all the story explained in details. 20 april 1944 the Election Assembly convened. It decided that appointment of Vares by Pats was illegal and appointed Uluots Deputy President. He appointed Otto Tief premier and Alfred Maurer deputy premier. 18 September Uluots appointed new government with Otto Tief as deputy Premier (acting) and Domestic Minister. This government is recognized as legal by present-day Estonia. There was even formal ceremony of transfer of power from the government in exile (decended from th Otto Tief's government) to the present-day Estonian government in early 1990s (it does not recognize the Soviet Estonian government as its legal predecessor). Also this site says that even before the establishment of this government Jüri Uluots made a radio address encouraging people to support the German mobilization.--Nixer 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That Estonian government declared neutrality. (Staberinde 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Just as did Vicy France. We have here paragraphs about Vichy France, Denmark and so on. Why not Estonia? By the way, those who fought against the Red Army (including SS members) receive pension in present-day Estonia and considered fighters for Estonia, while members of Red Army and partisans considered traitors and receive no pension or any other social welfare.--Nixer 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That how history is viewed in current day Estonia is irrevelant about article of Axis powers in WW II(which was 60 years ago). Main reason why Estonian independence was declared then Germnas had left and soviets had not arrived was that Germany did not allow it. So its hard for me to see how to connect that Estonian government to axis as it was created without German permission, it practically did not cooperate with Germany at all(armed units that supported that government were not loyal to Germany any more) and it declared neutrality. (Staberinde 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

All laws in Estonia were restored by Germans from their status by 20 June, 1940. They also restored Estonian courts (local and supreme) and recognized Estonian citizenship. By the end of July, 1941 Uluots convened an assembly where they created a memorandum, thanking Germany for freeing Estonia.--Nixer 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Estonia and all the other Baltic states were part of the Richskommisariat Ostland under German occupation, as I have already said, and had no practical independence. Most of the above points are quite irrelevant to the page in question, clearly arising from contemporary political controversies.White Guard 00:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Union?

It could be said, that up to Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union was part of the Axis. They invades easterns Poland and was cooperating with the Germans until 22 June 1941. I think this article should reflect that. --The monkeyhate 11:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Relations between countries were quite shallow in the 1930s. For example, the Nazis had good relations with Chiang Kai-Shek until 1941 and condemned the Nanjing Massacre. No one would say that China was part of the Axis though. The Soviets offered to support Czechoslovakia in 1936 but lacked a common land border and were obstructed by Romania. Britain, France and Poland co-operated in the partition of Czechosloakia but no one in their right mind would say they were part of the Axis. The Soviets supported the democratically-elected Spanish government in the Spanish Civil War against Germany and Italy, while no other state did anything. Stalin had idiotically gutted his own officer corps in 1937 and needed some breathing space in which to rebuild the Red Army. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Soviet "co-operation" with Germany for less than two years in 1939-41 can be seen as an aberration, resulting from the short-sightedness and failures of the (future) Allies (including the Soviets), rather than any natural affinity between the Soviets and Axis countries. Grant65 | Talk 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that USSR should be mentioned. USSR wasn't officially member of axis(and article should mention that) but Molotov-Ribbendrop pact(which practically directly caused the start of war), its participation in invasion of Poland and German-Soviet Commercial Agreement which seriously weakened effect of allied naval blockade are importnant enough for haveing "Case of Soviet Union" in article like Spain and Denmark have.--Staberinde 13:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Than why not "case of the USA"?--Nixer 13:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Staberinde, the Molotov-Ribbendrop pact would not have happened if Britain and France had been prepare to work with Stalin before 1939. But they weren't. The Soviets were't ready for war with German in 1939 --- they weren't even ready in mid-1941 -- so the pact was a matter of survival. If there were any evidence that the Soviets had the same intention in invading Poland that Germany did, then I would be inclined to agree with you. By invading Poland, after the German invasion, the Soviets ensured that the Germans were several hundred kilometres further from the Soviet border than they would have been otherwise. I would compare the Soviet invasion to the Australian-Dutch invasion of Portuguese Timor in 1942. Had the Portuguese or Timorese put up any resistance then the Australians and Dutch would also have been placed in the position of killing people in a war of aggression. Grant65 | Talk 14:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

USSR were not a member of the Axis. It was a separate military action and was treated as such by the allies. Even though their actions were condemned by the Allies there was no aggression between the Allies and the USSR. If the USSR had been considered at the time to be members of the Axis then France and Britain would have declared war on the USSR as well as on Germany. Ronank 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pindus-Macedonian Principality

Someone should write something about the Principality of Pindus. I can't decide where to put it, however - since it was both an Italian and Bulgarian puppet state - maybe under collaborators? --PaxEquilibrium 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Norway

Were is information about Norway's collaboration government? It sent the troops to Russian front, also there was an Norway SS Divisions. - Ghoort 10:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Norwegian government fled to London during the German invasion. The Germans installed their own administration, but it did not have constitutional legitimacy. Norway should not be included here. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Norway should be included here, but solely because of Quisling's puppet government. Quisling gave name to the collaborators and it is still used today. The inclusion should have nothing to do with legitemacy of the government, but historical importance. (Well, Quisling's government didn't have practically any other importancy but this naming thing...) The cold fact is that Quisling's government is well known name around the world. It means that it shall be explained here (See Denmark for another example), otherwise it raises questions about the neutrality and impartiality of the Wikipedia. --Whiskey 12:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before. The fact that Quisling betrayed his countrymen and women is dealt with in several other articles. It is not a reason for including Norway in this article. Inge 12:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

But this article includes other puppet regimes, such as in Serbia and India.--Nixer 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)