Jump to content

Talk:Axis powers

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.166.131.189 (talk) at 21:46, 7 April 2010 (→Image size needs reduction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


But the reality is that a puppet government under Norweigian Fascist leader Quisling did existed during the German occupation. The puppet regime never become a formal member of the Axis, but it was a puppet state established by Nazi Germany, making it accountable as a Germany-sponsored puppet government in this article.

As for the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, all three were simply occupied without establishment of local puppet regimes, aside from some semi-autonomous institutes raised from local fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niobium101 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Quisling regime had zero autonomy, and thus does not count. Quisling is already dealt with over at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Manxruler (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should at least get a mention, if only because of what the name of its leader has come to symbolize. The collaborationist greek government didn't have any autonomy either, and it has its section. And the Italian-created independent Montenegro didn't even have a proper government for most of the war, yet it also has its section. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]


I don't get the point. Why isn't Vichy France put as a german puppet state? Slovakia, Serbia, Italy, Albania, Hungary and Vardar Macedonia are like Vichy: some collaborator states which had been "enslaved" by Nazi Germany. No one state was free to choose if he helped or not. So I cannot understand why there would be a difference. As Pétain and his governement had only limited actual powers (especially after 1942) and all the main decisions were taken by the german Military Administration, this would be easier and right to gather them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.220.205 (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is this thing called Western Bias, that predominates in English speaking countries. Go ahead and add Vichy France, but use citations as you do so. They shouldn't too difficult to find. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmilenko (talk • contribs) 00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ljotic's solders (SVC,ZBOR) (who were German allies), were involved in killing Croats and Muslims (who were also German allies)...How is that possible? Why would Germans let SVC (who were, btw, only operating in Nedic's Serbia where there are no Croats and almost no Muslims (Bosniaks)!) to kill people whose government is their ally since 1930s??? Just think! I am no way a supporter of Serbian fascist, I just want to point out some non-logical, and probably false facts...--Vule91 (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vule91 you just want to believe that all Serbs were completely innocent in history. Well, I don't believe that you think logical. Serbia was Hitler ally too. So why would Croats kill all those Serbs? Why Serbs killed Croats? Answer is simple. Hate from WW1 and a wish for ethnically clean state. Well, anyway that's my POV, you asked for it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.251.136 (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does inserting Chamberlain fail "NPOV"?

In 1938, the USSR offered to defend Czechoslovakia, and offered to create an anti-Nazi alliance in Europe. Neville Chamberlain did everything in his power to prevent the creation of such an alliance, including flying to Nazi Germany, twice! After the UK, due to Chamberlain's actions refused an alliance with the USSR, and AFTER Hitler offered the USSR an alliance, Stalin signed. Instead, according to some mystic version of "NPOV", we are supposed to pretend that Stalin and Hitler signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact "out of the blue". How exactly does mentioning basic facts, violate NPOV? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should actually read whole section (especially as it isn't very long in this case) before you start editing it. You talk about 1938 but that is actually in previous paragraph, not in the one you edited. Whole betrayal of Czechoslovakia is already mentioned in previous paragraph. The paragraph you edited speaks about talks that took place in 1939 both between Brits/French and Soviets, and between Germans and Soviets. Your wording places whole blame of the failure about tripartite talks on Brits, and that is about as neutral as: "After pressing demands that Western Allies could not accept Stalin made pact with Hitler about dividing Eastern-Europe." would be.--Staberinde (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attempt to read my mind, or to pretend to know whether I read the previous section or not. Only I know whether I read the section or not, and you cannot possibly know that. Unless you are a mind-reader. So please don't say "you should actually read whole section" because that implies that I did not read it, when in fact I read it. That's original research on your part, and I can assure you, that in this case it is dead wrong original research. And yes, it's mentioned, in passing, in the previous paragraph, and I clarified it. Stalin's demand was that Czechoslovakia be defended, or at least that the Western Allies would try to defend it, with more than three divisions. I don't see what is so pressing about that. When you have to make up a fact to support your argument, you argument fails. Analogies must be real; they cannot come from the land of fantasy. I have no problem with you linking the Tripartite Pact to this article, so you too, can clarify. What I have a problem with, is that you are trying to avoid my clarification, and in doing so, try to make me look like a POV Warrior. That's not very nice. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I totally did not talk about Tripartite Pact but about tripartite talks between USSR-UK-France that took place in 1939. This paragraph you edited talks about negotiations in 1939, and that should be obvious from first sentence of paragraph, unless you are claiming that Stalin was actively negotiating with Hitler already before Munich. Anything about 1938 and Czechoslovakia would go into previous paragraph, currently your edit essentially claims that USSR-UK-France negotiations in 1939 failed due British, which totally fails NPOV.--Staberinde (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, they did fail due to the British actions of 1938. You are trying to make it look like the events are unconnected, when there's an indisputable connection between them. Had the British agreed to the Soviet Proposals of 1938, there is no way that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact would be signed, as USSR would be at war with Nazi Germany! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The map shows the Axis powers wrong. Finland was not a part of the Axis, as also the Allied leaders concluded in Tehran

Following the Winter War, Finland had prepared for a continued Soviet aggression and a defensive campaign - not offensive -, as the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim has pointed out in his memoirs.

Accordingly, the Continuation War which started with the Soviet invasion of Finland on June 25, 1941, was not a part of the German campaign against the Soviets, as also the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, on December 1, 1943, correctly concluded.

Together with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin acknowledged in the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, ending on December 1, 1943, that the Finnish-Soviet Continuation War was a separate war - not a part of the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied powers.

Finland was also not a signee of the Tripartite Pact, at any point. Thus the map showing the Axis powers in the top right corner of this article is misleading in this regard. Accordingly, it needs to be removed. It can be replaced by a similar map which will show the correct state of the Axis powers during WW2.

Finland did participate in certain level of co-operation with Germany during WW2, and particularly in the summer of 1944 weapons purchased from Germany were of great help to Finland. However - again -, Finland was not a member of the Axis powers.

Due to the separate nature of the own struggle, the Finns refused to cooperate with the Nazis in many critical areas, such as:


1) - - signing the Tripartite Pact, also called the Axis Pact, which established the Axis Powers of World War II (despite of many requests from the Nazi-Germany);
2) - - allowing direct German attacks from the Finnish soil against the Soviet Union during the Interim Peace period;
3) - - accepting the approximately 80 000 German troops offered to be placed under command of Marshal Mannerheim;
4) - - attacking the Soviet Union, unless/until the Soviet Union would attack Finland first;
5) - - cooperating in the siege of Leningrad;
6) - - cutting the Allied "lifeline", which was operated over Lake Ladoga and which brought desperately needed supplies to the defenders of Leningrad;
7) - - cutting the Murmansk railroad, which delivered massive amounts of Allied weapons and other supplies to the Soviets;
8) - - attacking the same targets as the Germans;
9) - - handing Finnish Jews to the Nazis (The Finnish Jews participated in the Finnish war efforts just like all other Finnish citizens);
10) - declaring war against any other Allied countries except Soviet Union, ... etc.


The current President of Finland Tarja Halonen has reminded of the war-time Finnish policy which secured the operation of the Allied "lifeline" of help over Lake Ladoga, helping to save Leningrad from the Nazi occupation.

By not participating in the siege of Leningrad - alone -, the Finns prohibited a huge strategic and moral victory from the Nazis.

Being the highest leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin knew in detail what the Soviet intentions regarding Finland were. He knew exactly what had taken place, and why.

Accordingly, - in the Tehran Conference the Allied leaders determined that Finland was fighting a separate war against the Soviet Union - not the same as the one between Germany and the Soviet Union -, and that it was not 'de jure' member of the Axis, and therefore Finland could also get out of the war through negotiations and separate peace agreement.

Thus, the separate peace agreement was granted to Finland and the Continuation War's aftermath was dealt under a separate, conditional peace treaty. The Nazis were forced into a treaty of their own. It was unconditional and meant total surrender.

Unlike Nazi leaders, many of whom were sentenced to death, the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim had advanced to become the President of Finland on August 4, 1944, continuing in office until March 4, 1946, when he resigned and retired - 19 months after the ending of the Continuation War. 87.93.87.52 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinatingly incorrect argumentation. Just because someone was not tried for war crimes, does not mean that they did not cooperate with Nazi Germany. Romania cooperated with Nazi Germany, initially and to save itself from utter destruction. However there was cooperation, yet no Romanians were tried. The reason that Mannerheim was not tried, was because he did not commit atrocities that Hitler committed. Know of any Gas Chambers and mass graves in Helsinki? Didn't think so.
However, if you cooperated with Nazi Germany, irrespective of the reason, you were part of the Axis, irrespective of the De Jure/De Facto distinction. The USSR was De Jure neutral during the Vietnam War and yet they still fought.
The main sin of the Finnish forces and Swedish "volunteers" was the Siege of Leningrad. Stalin, whom you are citing, also considered the Japanese Front, another front. Yet Japan is still listed under the Axis, although it was too, agreed at Teheran, by politicians, that Japanese War was a separate one. So if you remove Finland, the same argumentation applies to Japan.
Additionally, your 10 points are incorrect, as the Finns cooperated fully in the Siege of Leningrad. For instance, the Finns would not allow American food convoys to enter Leningrad. That is cooperation in a siege. The whole idea of a siege, is to, and let's not sugar-coat it here, the idea of a siege is to starve the city into surrendering. The Finns were 100 percent complicit in that, when they blocked the railroad, and prevented the delivery of American food supplies. The US prevented the entire Red Army from suffering malnutrition, I am sure they could have managed to do the same to Leningrad. (On a historical note, the Red Army were thankful for the food, but were unnerved about the Allies not opening the second front, so the US food packages were dubbed the "Second Front".)
If all of your 10 points are correct, you would be correct. However to claim that the Finns did not participate in the Siege of Leningrad, is to lie. Thus the map should stay. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image size needs reduction

Hello! I am looking up various articles and the first shown image is not shown due to too many pixels. If anyone could reduce the image size, or replace the image, it would be appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.131.189 (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&oldid=354615318"