Talk:Axis powers/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Finland

I added references to the Hitler and Mannerheim directives. These are important source documents which contemporaneously describe the objectives of Finland's co-belligerency from both the German and Finnish perspective. I realize that many Finns are "touchy" about the country's co-belligerency with Hitler, but that is no reason to delete contemporaneous source documents. The article states that Finland maintained command of its armed forces and pursued its war objectives independently, including its refusal to participate in the siege of Leningrad. I could not find documentation of the claim that Finland refused to participate in the siege of Murmansk. BarbarossaBaron 21:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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/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)

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)

Indeed. The German government invited exiled Yugoslav King Peter II to assume power of the "Kingdom of Serbia" they created, but he never did - there was no legitimacy; the puppet-State of Serbia may be compared with the General-Government (although with some form of self-provision. There is no reason not to have an article on Quisling Norway. --PaxEquilibrium 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland

i know Switzerland supplied Germany in WWII and turned its Jews to the germans, so I think we should mention them.

Thailand

The section on Thailand under Co-belligerents needs to be grammaticized.

Also - what does 'co-belligerent' mean? Jake95 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can help answer this. 'co-belligerent' was the term chosen months ago to describe the situation in Finland. Finland was initially supportive of the German war effort in the region because Finland itself was at war with the Soviet Union. However, this support was purely based on the logic that Finland's own existance was threatened by the war so from a strategic point of view it made sense. Finland later switched sides and fought the Germans. This has been debated before and there is a lot more to it than what I just wrote. But it is this complicated situation that we chose the term 'co-belligerent' to describe. The fact that other nations were later added under that section of the article is frankly still unclear to me since that section of the article was created to describe the unique and to this day very sensitive situation in Finland at the time. MartinDK 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Check Co-belligerence. Although Finland was de facto ally of Germany, it wasn't allied de jure due to ideological differencies. There are numerous examples also in modern world for similar situations, like Iran being co-belligerent with USA against Taliban or Saudis with USA against Iraq.--Whiskey 09:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Graf Schwerin von Krosigk

Graf Schwerin von Krosigk never was Chancellor of the German "Reich". He was apointet as finance minister by Hitler prior to his suicide, later apointet as foreign minister by Dönitz. Schwerin von Krosigk was the Leading Minister of the Acting Government. But this is not like the titel "Reichskanzler", Chancellor of the German "Reich". Last Chancellor was Joseph Goebbels who also has been appointet by Hitler. NashvilleD 10:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Slovakia

I see Slovakia is not mentioned under "German Puppets" nor anywhere else except at the bottom. Would someone be so kind mentioning them? For a short introduction: AFAIK after german forces conquered Morava, Hitler gave Slovaks the possibility to become independent, so they didn't have to fight, and they took the deal. They were allies (or puppets) until the uprising 1944. -- Bertram

Slovakia was in article before, some vandal had deleted it so I readded it.--Staberinde 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. There's stillone thing i'm not too clear about. Is that shown on the pictures the real flag of the 1st Slovak Republic? Shouldn't it have a Hlinka-cross? (example: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/sk%5Ehg.html)

Denmark revisited

I just read the discussion about Denmark in the archives for this page (one of the most informative content debates I've ever read on WP, by the way) and have come to the conclusion that Denmark should be listed, along with Vichy France and Independent Croatia, as a collaborator state of the Axis. The conditions under which Vichy is classified as a collaborator are similar to Denmark's. I don't see any reason to change the text of the Denmark section, it's fairly well-written and NPOV, just the heading should be changed to list it as one of the collaborator states. Cla68 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Cla68. It does not make any sense to make up a heading "The case of..." when Denmark clearly collaborated with Germany. It should be included with the other collaborator states.

I've restored the heading that was agreed to after a very long debate. You consider the case to be closely related to the case of France. Noted, but such a conclusion is strongly disputed by many Danish historians who see clear differences between Denmark and France. The quote I mentioned from Lidegaard could be backed up with others of the same nature, and the term "collaborator state" is definitely incorrect for the 1943-45 period. Will try to find a source for the Montgomery remark. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 05:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I don't completely agree but the section is now, at least, well-cited. Cla68 06:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope so. If you need more sources, please let me know. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can understand why many Danes today would dispute Denmark's classification as an Axis ally or collaborator. Bulgarians, Romanians, Finns, Slovaks all dispute that they willingly allied themselves or collaborated with Hitler. But Denmark give material economic and military aid to the Germans, especially against Russia. Would a new category of say "vassal state" be acceptable? Scando 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I need some serious help here It is now being seriously suggested at Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II that the Germans were not in full control of Denmark and that the Danes were therefore able to establish heavily guarded camps for German refugees during the last months of the war and that these camps were used to systematically mistreat German children, women and eldery. The primary argument used to back this up is that since the Danes could rescue the Jews the Germans could not be in control of Denmark. MartinDK 07:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Spain as an Axis collaborator

It seems user Staberdine opposes putting Spain into Axis collaborator section. Any reasons why not to do so?--Planemo 10:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read through the archives and you will see why we agreed on this. Also please do not change the Denmark section without talking about it here first. We already had one revert war over this. You are free to raise your concerns overt the factual accuracy here but please do not make such edits without talking about it first. MartinDK 10:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already looked through archives and found no discussion regarding Spain. Some users argued it should not be shown as an Axis power, but nobody argued that Spain was not Axis collaborator.--Planemo 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Axis_Powers/Archive4#Spain_.26_Vichy_France I am not saying it can't be changed but this article is a mine field and we know from experience that we need to talks things htrough here before we change the article. MartinDK 10:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So I read the archive and found no reason why Spain should be placed in a separate category than Danmark--Planemo 11:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh... why did you change your signature from User:Nixer ?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axis_powers_of_World_War_II" Reinserted by me as the below editor removed it MartinDK 07:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, Planemo. There is no factual dispute as to Spain's status as an Axis collaborator.CaesarRosso 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus should Spain be mentioned in article as part of Axis or not. Same is true about Denmark and USSR. For example some people think that USSR should not be mentoned at all and others think that it was member of axis. Because of that those borderline cases are made separate so that it would be clear that there is not clear consensus about those countries. It is up to reader to decide if Spain was Axis collaborator or was it neutral country who doesn't belong to this article at all. But now I want explanation for this[2].--Staberinde 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute that Spain should classified as an Axis collaborator. If there is any dispute, please state a factual basis. Otherwise, cease with the reverts, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SPAIN WAS AN AXIS COLLABORATOR, PERIOD. Franco was installed by German and Italian troops and both sympathized and collaborated with the Axis. CaesarRosso 05:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

CaesarRosso, your shouting doesn't impress us. I suggets you to learn what term "collaborationism" means.--Staberinde 10:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Norway again, again, again

I just noticed that Norway seems to have been reinserted some time ago. If there are no serious objections or new information I will remove it again per previous discussion about this. MartinDK 10:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree again that Norway does not belong on this list. This has been discussed at lenght and been decided, but new participants should be alowed to vent their opinons anyway. Illythr reverted and stated "Norway wasn't a full-fledged Axis power. That is why it is listed in as a "German puppet state" along with Serbia and Italy." Norway wasn't even a partial Axis power. It was occupied by Germany and administered by the German occupants. In order to calm the Norwegians down a bit a mock governmant was installed with Quisling given the quasi-title of ministerpresident. This institution had no power to act without consent from the German occupants and was trusted with few areas of government. Norway did not in any way participate in the war on the Axis side. The occupants extracted resources from Norway as they did with all other occupied territories, but also spent considerable resources occupying it. Some individual Norwegians enlisted in volunteer units established by the German military. Individuals from virtually every European country did the same. This does not make Norway an Axis power. As this topic has reached consensus before I will remove Norway again. If anyone insists in reinserting it please dicuss it here first.Inge 13:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The name of the problem is Quisling.

The simple fact that the name Quisling has become the synonym of a collaborator forces the entry of Norway to this article. If Quisling is not handled here, it means that Norway will pop up again and again and again in this article in unexpected forms, most likely not very informed I am sure. The case of Denmark is the way how it should be done also with Norway: Those who are better informed should enter the facts (and sources) to the article, it is the only way Norway could be presented in truthful way.

This doesn't mean that Quisling government was even a puppet government, but it should be explained here what it was. --Whiskey 13:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, create a "case of Norway" subsection or something, but don't just delete it all outright. --Illythr 13:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point (the entry I removed was in some points factually incorrect as well), but: This article is dealing with Axis powers of World War II. The actions of mr Quisling does not merit the inclusion of Norway. If someone wants to know more about Quisling the synonym they can go to Quisling, if they want to know more about Quisling the man they can go to Vidkun Quisling and if they want to learn something about what happened to Norway during WWII they can go to Norway during World War II. Norway was reentered because someone believes it to have been somewhat less than "a full-fledged Axis power", but still an Axis power. This is wrong, but would be what retention of the entry implies. We can't be preassured to include things a consensus has decided to leave out.Inge 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If we were to write a a balanced and informative "case of Norway" section on Norway here under Axis powers of World War II it would in effect be a section describing why some people might have the misunderstanding that Norway was a minor Axis power and why Norway wasn't an Axis power. More or less something more fitting on a discussion page. Then we would have to defend that version. A reader is more informed on the status of Norway during WWII by the exclution of Norway.Inge 14:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Whiskey has a point about taking control of what is added to the article rather than keep reverting what people are otherwise going to add anyway. That is a good solution and one that I have advocated on other articles as well. However, in this case we need to draw a line somehwere. There was a time where Belgium was also added along with Luxemburg for very obscure reasons. This article should not include countries whose status during the war was never questioned. I think the best way to do this would be to refer the reader to the Quisling article. Perhaps what we need is a small section that refers the reader to the various articles on collaboration in countries otherwise not regarded as even remote members of the Axis? MartinDK 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a chapter about collaborationist movements. The current version of Quisling article is in no way an improvement, as it hints there was much more organized co-operation with Germany in Norway than there really was. Also, it refers other collaborationist movements as Quislings, which makes even more important to provide factual information about it somewhere. Norway during World War II is a little better, but it also dances around the question about the nature of Quisling regime. --Whiskey 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Quisling and other articles does need improvement, but are the more suitable places to inform people on this subject. As Martin pointed out we need to draw the line somewhere. I believe the line runs somewhere just north of the Danish border (not literaly:)). I was a bit hesitant to go for including it, but there were some strong points for it. The solution reached there was a good one. But I don't think we should go further. I am sure there are someone out there who might argue that almost every European country merits some mention or paragraph in this article. Should we then preemtively create paragraphs for them? Norway, Belgium, Luxemburg definately fall into the exclude category even if they might be readded by passers by from time to time. A general collaborators section might be a good idea though. Espeshially if it is handled in the same professional manner as the Denmark case. On the other hand we already have Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II and Collaboration during World War II.Inge 16:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only is including Norway in this article just down right daft, the chapter devoted to "Norway's controversial role" was wholly factually incorrect until I went to work on it. Improve Quisling or something, Norway has no relevance to do here. Sure, there a lot of collaborators, but that was common in every occupied country during WWII and goes under collaboration, not Axis power membership. Manxruler 23:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this applies to a number of countries invaded by Germany listed in this article. It's very odd to have these listed as members (or even associated with) of the Axis only because either Germany annexed them or because a number of Collaborators (whose role should not be downplayed, but in most cases they cannot be seen as representative of those countries) aided Germany (or another Axis power). Only if they had formed a national government (with a minimum of recognition (a puppeteer state would be enough)) should one consider listing them here.--Caranorn 13:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I understand this article is supposed to take into account the actions and attitudes of actual governments, not collaborators. Quisling never really got to form a collaborationist government, the Germans never gave up any real power in occupied Norway. Manxruler 13:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we were to consider the Nasjonal Samling as a collaborationist government, something I wouldn't see as correct, then we need to emphasize that and switch the Norwegian flag with the Nasjonal Samling sun cross File:Nasjonal Samling Symbol.jpg flag. Manxruler 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Caranorn 12:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed Norway from this article, if wikipedians want to write and read about Vidkun Quisling then they should do it on his article or on a collaborationist one, not an "Axis powers" article. Norway was an ally, and even before the invasion the instructions given by the Norwegian government to the military was that a German landing was to be opposed, while an allied landing was not to be. Manxruler 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it took only 3 months and we are back in the situation that someone added Norway. Are you people willing to make this discussion four times a year again and again? Unless we take this issue into our hands and make an educated addition of Norway to this article, it will be added here by someone who doesn't know so much about the issue. I still stand what I wrote in the beginning of this section: The name of the problem is Quisling, not only the person, but the fact that with all those "quislingisms" it has lost the personification but moved to the abstract definition of collaboration. --Whiskey 07:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, as it was it didn't deserve inclusion in any Wikipedia article. I still don't quite understand your arguements, Whiskey, could you explain a bit further? The Quisling talk doesn't give me much at all, I though I addressed it earlier in this discussion. Could you elaborate a bit on your thoughts? And why should the article include Norway just because a lot of people are ignorant about Norway's relationship with Nazi Germany during WWII? Norway was no Axis power. The Quisling issue should be left to the relevant articles. Manxruler 23:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

English dictionaries have "quisling" included with the meaning of collaborator, thanks to the extensive publicity Quisling received in Britain ("Quislings everywhere!"). Most books handling Operation Weserübung do mention Quisling as a Norwegian politician who collaborated with Germans. As those same books don't explain fully Quisling's failure in creating functioning government in Norway, it lefts the casual readers with an impression that Quisling ran a German puppet government in Norway. As Wikipedia is free for everyone to edit, it is quaranteed that someone who has only fleeting idea about the issue reads the article, and get's a brilliant idea:"Wow, they are missing Quisling's Norway here, I'll just add it now." We have already seen it here. And we will see it again. I'll bet that before October someone had added Norway again, so instead of whacking that mole we should act preventatively and explain in the article why Quisling, regardless of his infamy, and Norway are not eligible to this article by adding it to the article. Maybe it can be done by adding it to the puppet section as an failed attempt to create puppet government? --Whiskey 11:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, if there should appear someone, perhaps in October, not bright enough to check his/her facts or even check the talk page before adding, then I'm willing to intercept and delete. October is a long way away anyway. Manxruler 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible typo?

Ethiopia was consolidated with the Italian colonies of Eritrea and Somolialand to form the new state of Italian East Africa Is this a typo that should instead be Somaliland? I'm pretty sure thats the case, but I'm not 100% sure that I am correct. --Bletch 00:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I changed it. MartinDK 07:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq ?

How come the animated map shows Iraq being axis state or occupied in 1942 ? Eregli bob 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange Addition in first paragraph under Origins...

The last line of this says: "An Axis was declared between canada and america by george w. bush, foreign minister of Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini on October 12, 2007."

Is someone trying to make a political statement or are they just being childish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lindyguy (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Bulgarian skirmishes with Soviet Black Sea Fleet

The Bulgarian Navy fought several skirmishes against the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and sank at least one Soviet submarine. The Soviet submarine was Shch-204 "Minoga" (sank 06.12.1941 30km off Varna harbour near cape Emine during attack against Bulgarian/Romanian convoy. It was found by Bulgarian trawler in 1983) Several sources mention that submarine was heavily damaged by depth charges from Bulgarian patrol boats "Belomoretz" and "Chernomoretz" (built in USA in 1918 for France, purchased by Bulgaria in 1922), broke surface and was destroyed by artillery fire from Bulgarian patrol boats.

Drawing of the remains of Shch-204.

http://www2.filehost.to/files/2007-02-22_03/184200_sank_soviet_sub__by_bulgarians.jpg

Bulgarian patrol boat "Belomoretz", captured by Soviets in 1944 and renamed C60.

http://sovnavy-ww2.by.ru/small/pic/c60.jpg

Several Soviet submarines also exploded on seamines near Bulgarian coast - those were at least S-34 (11.1941 - cape Emine), Shch-211 (11.1941 - cape St. Atanas, it was found in 2000 by Bulgarian divers). Soviet submarines also sank several Bulgarian merchant ships - these included refrigerator ship "Shipka" (2304 GRT, sank by L-4 type submarine 15.09.1941), small transport ship "Struma" (275 GRT, sunk by submarine Shch-213 24.02.1942), schooner (scuttled by boarding party from the submarine Shch-214 02.06.1942), schooner "Vita" (240 GRT, sunk by submarine Shch-215 24.08.1944). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

The cases of Spain and Portugal

It should be divided into 2 separate parts actions of those countries were not completely identical.--Staberinde 12:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares

If anyone cares, the definition of an "Axis power" is, and I quote, "Any state (or country) that were opposed to the allies during WWII". So then there is some idea that a lot of the countries that are being mentioned above aren't actually worth mentioning. Zazzer 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So then how do you define 'Allied Power'?
By saying 'any state opposed to the 'axis?

There was no 'Allied' agreement put to pen anymore than there was an 'Axis' agreement.

By your/that definition....
Stalin was part of the Axis because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, not only invading and dividing up an 'ally/Poland?'
but but feeding, refueling and arming Berlin against our blockade?
Roosevelt was part of the Axis because he supported recognizing pro-Nazi Vichy leaders instead of Churchill's Free French choice DeGaulle?
Tokyo was part of the Allies because instead of attacking the USSR, it made friends, increased trade and allowed Zhukov's Siberian armies to save Moscow, Stalingrad and eventually raise Berlin?
Chiang Kai Shek was part of the Axis when choosing to attack the Red Chinese communists instead of the Japanese?

Sure I care how you define 'Axis', no less than I care how you define 'Allies'.

Maybe the Finns have it right in that they call each war, even over-lapping, as separate wars with ever-changing line-ups instead of this over-simplistic convenience that makes our anglo-saxon history look best.

But if historians did that maybe our best American Mountain Troops would have caught those truly responsible for 9/11 rather than ordered away based upon inaccurate and over-simplification of historical names and terminology?

Still think that definition ends all debate for everyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balderdashedder (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Finland was not under "axis control"

The map shows Finland as being under "Axis control" since 7/1941. That implies that Finland was occupied by Axis forces but it was not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.50.237 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

That's true. The title should be "Axis powers, puppets, collaborator states, co-belligerents ando occupied areas

" as per the divisions in the article itself. 82.181.150.151 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Color Key for 2nd Map?

The MAP KEY for the 2nd image (the animated map) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ww2_allied_axis.gif ... seems to be for some other map I think because the only colors used are RED, BLUE, and BLACK... yet the colors in the key-code below the map (when clicked from the main article) shows a whole bunch of colors that don't appear... and doesn't have the colors RED, BLUE, or BLACK that are actually used. Seems that RED is for Russian controlled Allied Power countries, and BLUE is all the other Allies... BLACK is obviously the Axis Power controlled countries. But what's up with this key? It's got a bunch of shades of green and orange/brown, but none of the actually relevant colors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ww2_allied_axis.gif

Robk6364 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Puppet states

Shouldn't Croatia and Slovakia be in the 'Puppet states' section?The article labels Serbia and Montenegro as puppet states but Croatia which also got independence after the occupation of Yugoslavia is (for some unknown reason) put under 'Minor Axis members'category?Dimts 13:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Iran and Afghanistan?

I think Iran and Afghanistan should both be listed seperately as co-beligerents. Iran under Reza Shah Pahlavi refused to evict all German nationals living in the country and denied the use of their railways to the Allies. Iran was eventually invaded by British and Soviet forces for showing signs of support for Germany. Afghanistan invited and recieved industrial support from Germany and even expected support from Japan and Italy until pressure from the British made them expel all nondiplomatic personnel. Volker89 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Finland

Finland was NOT allied with the Axis powers. They were in war with Soviet but not with the allied powers at large. They had libarated themselves in 1917 from Russia. They were enemeys with the much mightier Soviet so ofcourde they accepted support against them but that does not make allies and a parto of the Axis powers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.250.43.176 (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

According to the statement above "Any state (or country) that wes opposed to the allies during WWII", Finland was a part of Axis, since USSR was with Allies at the time of the conflict Wikisib 20:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Finland was allied with Germany de facto, willingly took help in the form of supplies from Axis states and fought against the Allies, mainly Soviet Union. Although Finland never was ideologically on the same line as other Axis states, all historical evidence and pure reason points towards the fact that FINLAND WAS ALLIED WITH AXIS FORCES THANK YOU GOODNIGHT. Arctic-Editor 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs serious clean up!

What the hell has happened here in last few months? It was completely fine article but now it seems that people try to add practically everything to "controversial cases" section although it originally was meant to include only Denmark(never declared war on germany and some danes participated at eastern-front), Spain(officially neutral but sent volunteers to eastern-front) and USSR(participated in invasion of Poland). Now even Channel islands and Monaco are there.--Staberinde 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I removed all those exctremely weak cases. Reminder for all: "controversial cases" section was meant for countries which by some standards could be considered axis co-belligrents. It was not meant for puppet regimes nor for every government that had some kind of connections to some axis power. I currently left Iran and Portugal untouched because those may be justified to be included but I have serious doubts about both of them. And Portugal needs to be separated from Spain anyway.--Staberinde 10:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone seriously wants to have those "cases of controversial relations with axis" then I suggest you to create separate article for that. "Controversial cases" section was meant as compromize solution for countries that some people consider co-belligrents of Axis powers and other people don't, because those who thought they should be in article continued adding them and those who though they do not belong here continued deleting them. For example some say that USSR was Axis co-belligrent before barbarossa, others say it was neutral, same thing with Spain. Nobody considers Tibet or First Republic of Eastern Turkestan axis co-belligrents so adding them to this article is ridiculous.--Staberinde 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Staberinde, "co-belligerents" are not the same thing as "cases of controversial relations with the Axis". That is the point here. While I agree with much of what you say — and references need to be provided for a lot of this stuff — many states did have controversial relations with the Axis powers, without being co-belligerents.

And you have deleted properly referenced material, which is against Wikipedia policy. Grant | Talk 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain my point again, problem is not lack of references. Originally "controversial cases" section was created for Denmark(originally it was simply "Case of Denmark"). Reason was simple, some wanted to add it as co-belligrent, some wanted to add it as puppet, some did not want to add it at all. Later USSR and Spain were added for same reasons. So my point is, "Controversial cases" section was created for countries that by some people's opinion fit to some of existing categories(axis members/puppets/collaborators/co-belligrents) but some other people dont want to add it at all. It was not created for every country that had controversial relations with some Axis power. Adding those numerous countries and even occupied territories seems to have been done also with minimal discussion. Also it makes article far too long. It would be same if someone would start adding every little detail(like detailed description of Tannu Tuva importance) into "Allies of World War II" article. If that information I deleted definitely needs to be added somewhere then I suggest creating article Neutral countries with controversial relations with Axis or something like that--Staberinde 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, well create the page then, don't just delete stuff which is properly referenced. Grant | Talk 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Cases of controversial relations with the Axis of World War II. Should include all material which were at this article before I started cleaning it.--Staberinde 11:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft markings

Somebody has added aircraft national markings to the article (but tank marking, naval flags, clothing insignia etc, etc.). How are the relevant to the subject when we already have the flags? No more than postal stamps or coins I think. 82.181.150.151 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The minor axis powers in Europe's aircraft markings are clones of Nazi-Germany's aircraft markings. Perhaps they should be assembled in a new section, so that the reader will see the resemblance? Necessary Evil 21:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually remove the lot if it hasn't been done already. All of these countries had scores of National Emblems or symbols, including one in this article is more then sufficient.--Caranorn 11:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

except that they weren't (generally). U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. both were fond of stars, and were allies. But the stars weren't of common origin... Of course there were common identifiers such as the yellow bands on Eastern front aircrafts, but those are beyond the scope of this article. 82.181.150.151 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro

Montenegro was originally an Italian puppet-state. --PaxEquilibrium 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The case of Sweden

I think Sweden should be included in this article in some way, even though they were neutral. Sweden, is a nation that I think would have easily entered the war on Germany's side had it been pushed to that limit. TheGoodSon 25 May 2007 00:33 (UTC)

Sweden is already included in the Cases of controversial relations with the Axis of World War II page. Volker89 25 May 2007 18:06 (UTC)

San Marino

From Participants in World War II:
Ever since the times of Garibaldi, San Marino has maintained strong ties with the Italian state. San Marino joined Italy in declaring war on Great Britain in 1940. Following the Italian surrender, San Marino immediately declared its neutrality. On September 21 1944, San Marino declared war on Germany, which eventually occupied the nation while retreating northward. Following the war, San Marino provided for nearly 100,000 refugees.
Should this, perhaps, be added? --NEMT 07:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If we can source it, definitely. But where should San Marino be listed? If it didn't sign the Tripartite Pact, it doesn't belong under "Minor powers", if it wasn't involved in military action, it isn't really a co-belligerent, could it be considered an Italian puppet state? 96T 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if you get a source we will definitely find a way to include it, although it will require some thinking where to put it.--Staberinde 20:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese Flag

When I edited the 'Case of Spain' article to include Portugal (which had a comparable view and experience), I added the Portuguese flag. Than, it was deleted, citing the fact that it 'is a current symbol.' Now (pardon the tongue) but WTFrick is going on with THAT?

The Dannenborg (Spelling?) is the World's oldest flag still in use, and is ALSO used today as a symbol of Denmark, but it is included in the 'Case of Denmark' box. Now, did I miss a memo or something? Did Denmark decide to kick out a 500+ year old flag because it was 'past it's prime?' If not, than I see no reason why the Portuguese flag should not be included, as it seems that the Portuguese contribution to the Axis was far more than the Danish one (again, given the fact that the Germans had occupied the country, that there were a few recruits for the Wehrmacht, etc. compared to the large-scale ecconomic, moral, and diplomatic aid given by Portugal in addition to her recruiting for the Axis)

Is there Any opposition to putting the Portuguese flag back up?

Speak now, or, in all due likelihood, we will be having this later after an editing war:> ELV

Spanish and Portugese cases should be splitted into two separate parts as those states were not identical in their actions.--Staberinde 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RSI civil vs. war flag

I am of the understanding the civil flag, while declared, was never actually used in practice, and the war flag was present everywhere you would look for any type of state flag. This is explained somewhat more clearly in Italian Social Republic and Flag of Italy. Which should be included in the article? --NEMT 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are using official state flags for other states here, I do not see any reason to make any exceptions. I think adding one war flag then all other states are using state flag can simply confuse average reader who is not very educated in issue.--Staberinde 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Initially I felt the same way, but in the case of RSI never actually using the state flag I felt an exception would make more sense, in addition to aiding readers in distinguishing the RSI from the later Italian republics. --NEMT 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, problem is, if we use war flag then it will cause misunderstandings. For example I personally believed for quite long time that official flag of RSI was the one with eagle. I was very suprized then I found out that official state flag was identical to modern flag of italy.--Staberinde 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing though, it was the de facto official flag. --NEMT 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, i think it would be best if we would get third opinion here, both solutions have their arguments.--Staberinde 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agre with NEMT - I think it makes a lot more sense to use the flag which was actually in use, rather than a theoretical civil flag which was never actually used. The Flag of Italy article obviously explains everything in more detail, and is the place to relieve any misunderstandings, but this is not an article about flags. john k 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

vichy france

lacks info about the Vichy Milice fighting the French Resistance maquis and the free french commando units in indochina created by de gaulle in 1943. Paris By Night 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to know quite a lot about that part of history, why don't you add some info? I agree it would be good for the article. Manxruler 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

India

I LOVE the picture that is showing when a certain country (or area of a country) became part of 'the axis' or 'the allied-forces' (BIG thumbs up for the one who created that!), but one thing I can't help but wonder: that picture is showing that Inida collaborated with 'the allied-forces (US/UK/Canada), but the article itself says that there was a shadow-cabinet, which was active in the area that became part of Japanese rule, and which teamed up with 'the axis'. But the picture isn't showing that at all. What part of Inida was part of 'the axis'? --Robster1983 12:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• No part of India was part of the Axis, the Axis connection comes through the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind that collaborated with Imperial Japan during WWII. I guess one could mark the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as "their" territory, since they controlled it during WWII, although totally dependent on Japanese support. Manxruler 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Monaco

Perhaps Monaco should be included in the section of Italian puppet states. Italian forces invaded (I believe in 1943), as Monaco had a very large ethnic Italian population. After the armistice the Nazis took control. --NEMT 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cases of controversial relations with the Axis of World War II has a Monaco section.--Sus scrofa 23:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Monaco's involvement seems nearly identitcal to Montenegro's, though. --NEMT 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the text is there, it could probably be moved from there would someone be so inclined.--Sus scrofa 17:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union again

User:M.V.E.i. has been removing the Soviet Union from the list of controversial cases, giving the following edit summary: USSR WAS NEVER AN AXIS, if to judge by Ribentropp-Molotov, Why isnt the UK here for the Munchin Pact?? Stay objective. I believe that such changes can not be made without discussing it first. Thoughts? 96T 20:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the Munchin (or, rather, Munich) Pact a comparable alliance with that of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Munich was about appeasement, not cooperation in dividing up Europe. Now, I would never be caught defending the Munich Pact, I think it was cowardly and a that it played a significant role in giving mr. Hitler the confidence in starting WWII, but it is not comparable with the German-Soviet cooperation in conquering Europe pre-June 1941. The Soviet Union belongs in this article. Manxruler 23:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And Munich was an agreement, not a pact. A cowardly, despicable sell-out agreement, but none the less not a cooperative pact. Manxruler 06:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The pact beetwen USSR and Germany didnt include any statement about USSR helping Germany in-case it gets atacked. About the dividing up Europe, how then would you call giving a strategicaly importent part of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis by Britain and France? They gave Germany a part of Czechoslovakia (an Allied friend), with Czechoslovakia being against. Besides, dont forget that Ribentropp-Molotov was a response to the Munich Agreement. The USSR didn't say it would help Germany or Italy if they get atacked, and THAT is the thing that shows they were NEVER an Axis. Only if they would state they will help any Axis country if it gets atacked, only then they would be an Axis! M.V.E.i. 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't listed as an axis country. It's listed under the (somewhat tortuous) heading "Controversial cases of relations with the Axis". Not that I think your metric is particularly useful. Haukur 18:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

First, and what does the section mean? Temporrary Axis. Second, then Britain should be here to for the Munich Agreement, where they gave Hittler a part of an allied country, Czechoslovakiya (France is an Axis anyway, at least as Vichys one). And what about USA's buisness people making buisness with the Nazis? Britain is'nt here. The peace with the Japanese also shouldn't be mentioned, why? USSR meneged 3/4 of the war in Europe they couldn't enter the war Japan till the victory in Europe was secured (Just like USE keeping nutrality in Europe for to long). M.V.E.i. 18:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to keep this "Controversial cases" section then, sure, feel free to add Britain and France. I think we should move the USSR to the co-belligerent section, that's much more straightforward. Haukur 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But USSR didn't fight Britain or America, so how? USSR just doesn't fit here. Both USSR, and Britain didn't sign any agrrement on defending an Axis state in case it gets atacked. It leaves them out of the whole Axis picture. M.V.E.i. 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

They fought with Germany against Poland in 1939, hence they were co-belligerents in World War II. Your "defending an Axis state in case it gets atacked" definition isn't particularly helpful. Haukur 19:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but you can say the same on Britain & France taking a part from Czechoslovakia and giving it to the Germans. It can be freely called "partition of Czechoslovakia", part stayes Czechoslovakian, and part German. M.V.E.i. 19:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No you can't. Co-belligerents refers to powers that fight together. Nazi-Germany and Soviet-Russia did. Nazi-Germany and Britain didn't. Haukur 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We've got a whole seperate page on the theme at Cases of controversial relations with the Axis of World War II. Check out Alaexis proposal down here, i think it's nice. But we have to decide who else except USSR and Britain we add to the category. M.V.E.i. 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't support the removal of USSR from that section. It's written in neutral tone and lists facts that cannot be disputed.

Some other states could probably be added there. For example Soviet exports to Germany are mentioned as an example of 'controversial' relations. Then the countries like Sweden and Switzerland should also be present as they had rather extensive commercial relations with Nazis during the war. Finally one could also make a short summary of Western Powers' pre-War (or rather pre-1939) relations with Germany. Alæxis_¿question? 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To that i dont mind, agree. M.V.E.i. 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK guys, if USSR should be their then Britan and Vatikan (who made agreements with the Nazi Government) should be there to. In Britain i removed the part about having some Facist movements and parties in the 30's because it isn't connected with the war and they were never part of the British government (but offcourse i left the part about giving part of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis at the Munich Agreements, and about some officials in the far east supporting Japan). M.V.E.i. 12:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened before the war should be placed in a separate article, not here, as it surely has enough material for an article of it's own. This article is best served by limiting participants for those who co-operated with axis after the war had started. --Whiskey 13:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Whiskey. The UK had some dubious relations with the fascists before the war, yes, but spent the entire war being at war with them. As this article is about the Axis of the war only, Britain doesn't belong there. Dunno about the Vatican. 96T 13:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The war wouldn't start or at least wouldn't be so long if not Britain and France giving a part of Czechoslovakia to Hittler. I see in the old discussion that there to many said Britain fits here the same. Ribentropp-Molotov also was before the War, at least for the USSR. It wasn't a World War while it was German-British. M.V.E.i. 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The conflict between UK/France/Canada/Australia/Poland/Yugoslavia/Greece/Norway/The Netherlands/etc and Germany/Italy/Slovakia/etc ("German-British" ... ?) that began in 1939, when the Soviet Union originally pursued relations with Germany (mainly in the invasion of Poland), is defined as World War II, while the non-military political tensions in Europe in the 20s and 30s, where Britain and France pursued relations with Germany, aren't. This would make the USSR, and not the UK, a Controversial Case Of Relations With The Axis In World War II. 96T 14:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And still it wasn't yet named World War. The part that was given to Hittler from Czechoslovakia was one of the things that gave him the strategic power to start the war. Ribentropp-Molotov, i remind you, was a response to the Munich agreement. What you named was the same part of World War 2 as the Soviet-Finish war (i remind you, the USSR started it because of the fear Finland will support the Nazis, and as a result Finland were an Axis till 1943 when the Axis started loosing). M.V.E.i. 14:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not refer to the Winter War (which wasn't started because ... oh forget it, we're not gonna take that discussion here), but to the invasion of Poland, and to the economic collaboration between Germany & the Soviet Union. I agree with what you say about the Munich agreement - it might very well have helped start the war, it was a service to the Nazis, it was a betrayal of the ideals of democracy & self-government, but it is outside of the content of this article, which is the Axis powers & the states that collaborated with them DURING, not BEFORE, the war. If you are going to argue that World War II began after 1939, this isn't the place. The invasion of Poland clearly was part of the conflict, and in that invasion, Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union collaborated. So I repeat, Britain does not belong in this article, the Soviet Union does. 96T 15:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But take notice, the German invasion to poland was part of the conflict. Britain and France declared war on Germany, but not on the USSR. I wouldnt call it collaboration, it's more of a "we mind our buisness, you mind your buisness". The Munich agreement was so critical for the start of the war that we cant not put Britain here (i'm not saying France because they became Axis anyway). It was the partition of Czechoslovakia, which is laregly part of the conflict. M.V.E.i. 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Germans and Russians made an agreement to split Poland between them. They then both invaded that country and did exactly that. You wouldn't call that collaboration? Haukur 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No. It was understood that both country want to invade it. Hittler saw it as part of the reich, the Soviets needed it to make shure that the border with Germany will be more far from the capital. The Soviets after the Munich agreement didn't trust the west to support it in case it atacks Germany, so it was decided: "you dont make us problems when we invade, we dont make you problems when you invade. This is the border". M.V.E.i. 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if true this would be a transparently absurd argument for denying that collaboration took place. But it isn't even true. There was active military cooperation, joint victory parades, joint political declarations etc. Haukur 17:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Military coorporation? That didn't happen. Joint parades of victory? A parade, after taking Poland?? Taking Poland then wasn't such a challange to have a parade (i mean, Poland sended men on horses with swords to fights tanks), and joint parade? Though the agreements, there were heavy inner-propoganda against each other in each of the countries. Your right that the other thing i said is absurd, but not more then ignoring the fact that Britain and France did the same when giving a part of Czechoslovakia to Hittler. Wasn't it collaboration with the Nazis giving them a strategic importent territory? Same thing. M.V.E.i. 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Invasion of Poland articles? Haukur 20:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

MVEi: Your right that the other thing i said is absurd, but not more then ignoring the fact that Britain and France did the same when giving a part of Czechoslovakia to Hittler. Wasn't it collaboration with the Nazis giving them a strategic importent territory? Same thing. It seems you are still missing the point: the partition of Czechoslovakia was before the war. It does not in any way make the UK a case of relation with the Axis during the war. Axis-Western relations before the war are clearly a subject that must be covered by Wikipedia, but it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. 96T 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The partition of Czechoslovakia was one of the things that helped Hittler to start the war and thats why it needs to be mentioned. For the USSR Ribentropp-Molotov was before the war, because for the USSR there was no war with Germany till 1941 (unless you consider the war with Finland as a war with an Axis). M.V.E.i. 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The Axis were officaly founded only in 1940 with the Tripartite Pact, so technicaly Ribentropp-Molotov not only wasn't signed during the war (because for the USSR the war started only in 1941), but wasn't even signed with the Axis. BUT because of the impact it had on the war (not like the Munich agreement but still), i agree it is kept in the section but only if the UK is kept to. M.V.E.i. 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union fought with Germany against Poland in 1939. You can't somehow define that event out of existence. Haukur 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but as i already said, the Axis appeared only in 1940 after the Tripartite Pact, the invation to Poland was in 1939. I never said it was out of existence, thats why i eventually agreed it to be in the Controversial cases of relations with the Axis. But dont forget USSR fought Finland since 1939, and Finland was in close relations with Germany, a de facto Axis (thats the reason USSR invaded it in the first place, the fear of Finland leting Germany to use it's territory). It's a complicated case so it should be left the way it is. Now it's just fine so please lets leave it the way it's now. M.V.E.i. 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Finland had nothing whatsoever to do with the Axis before 1941, it was supported by the Allies.96T 20:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way there is no consensus on including the United Kingdom here, there is no consensus on removing the Soviet Union, but there is an old consensus on letting the Soviet Union stay where it is. Which means I'm removing the UK again and perhaps a temporary protection would suit this article. 96T 20:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: We could perhaps have a separate section on pre-war relations between the Axis powers and the Western Allies (and perhaps Axis-American relations, if such a thing existed, in 1939-41). What do anyone think of that? 96T 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that till 1940 there were no Axis, and the fact that for USSR the war started in 1941. Nevertheless, i agree on that. It's better then nothing, because the Munchin Pact case has to be reminded here. M.V.E.i. 21:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There were no Allies back then, they were formed after the Axis were. USSR had nothing to do with the Axis to, esspecialy if the Axis were formed in 1940 while Ribentropp-Molotov was signed in 1939. Thats why i say that it gets more complicated ans the best solution is to keep it the way it is now. M.V.E.i. 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically you're right, but Germany and Slovakia in 1939-40 are usually considered the Axis even though the Axis was formally founded in 1940. We could eventually consider removing the entire "Controversial Cases" section, leaving just Spain as it obviously supported the Axis all along, and have two new sections, one for Axis-Western relations, and one for Axis-Soviet relations. That would perhaps be more NPOV. But we need a consensus before we do such a thing. And I'm removing the UK and the Vatican City again, because we don't have any consensus, PLEASE respect that. 96T 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this. Since Portugal doesn't fit into any of these categories I propose to put the info about it into another section (not sure how to call it - Other countries' relations, maybe). Later this section could be expanded as Portugal's relations with Axis were not more significant than Sweden's or Switzerland's. Alæxis_¿question? 10:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Germany and Slovakia are Axis because they continued to be together after 1940. ANYWAY, your suggestion is great and i agree. And since it's a concensus on the suggestion (me, you and Alaexis), then it's probablly a majority. Vatican and UK should be entered in the west. About Vatican read the book Hittler's Pope. About Britain, Munich agreement and Far-East officials supporting Japan. M.V.E.i. 16:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a little fact-check on my part; the whole "Poland sended men on horses with swords to fights tanks"-thing never actually happened. Its a myth. A Polish cavalry unit got caught in the open by some German armored cars and suffered casualties. Then, some Italian war correspondents showed up at the scene and made up a wonderful story about Polish lancers attacking German tanks. Its as much of a myth as the one about the Polish Air Force getting knocked out on the first day of the invasion. Btw: I don't support any including of the United Kingdom here, due to reasons I've stated earlier.Manxruler 00:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are these words about cavalry in this article?? Or maybe someone has already removed them...

As I understand 96T's proposal UK's pre-war relations would be covered in the Axis-Western relations section so no separate section would be needed. Alæxis_¿question? 08:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with 96T's idea here. M.V.E.i. 16:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial cases section was created for states that some people want to add as members of axis or atleast co-belligrents or collaborators/puppets, but other people do no want to add at all. USSR is there simply on that reason. The fact that UK and France appeased Hitler before the war is irrelevant because this article is about things that happened during war(that means from 1st september 1939 - 2nd september 1945), not before it. Its completely fine as it is so I totally oppose any radical changes.--Staberinde 17:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Estonia

In 1944 the was a short-lived government in Estonia led by Otto Tief, established just after the Germans retreated and before the Soviets arrived. It was supported by some former SS units and implemented certain resistance to the USSR. Although there was no formal agreement of alliance between this government and Germany, I suggest considering its inclusion in the co-belligerent section. Any thoughts?--Dojarca 13:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Few problems with that, that goverment was established without german permission(that is main reason why it was founded only then germans were already leaving), it declared official neutrality, and forces that supported it were not loyal to germany anymore. Also it was effectively overun in few days with not very notable fighting, that time was pretty confusing anyway, and there were also shootings between estonians and germans. Btw, "some former SS units" were ethnic estonians which had been conscripted to waffen-ss. Also I am pretty sure that this thing has been discussed here before.--Staberinde 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Was there any fighting between this short-living government and German forces?--Dojarca 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no need for that, insomuch as these entities didn't compete for the same resources. There were, however, incidents of various warrior groups using force to take over supplies originally stored by the Germans, so as to use these supplies for the following fight against invading Soviets. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 03:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So there was no clashes between them and Germans and there was fighting against Soviets?--Dojarca 07:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not planning to do any WP:OR and will stick to WP:RS. Right? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Co-belligerence is waging the war in cooperation against a common enemy without the formal treaty of military alliance. there wasn't any cooperation between Germany and Tief Government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staberinde (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Of World War II" needed?

Why isn't this article just "Axis Powers"? I don't think the World War II qualification is needed or useful. Oberiko —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it seems kind of redundant, especially as Axis powers already redirects to this article.--Sus scrofa 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? How about the Axis of Evil?

Also it should be "powers" (lower case), just as we have Commonwealth realm because it was not an official name and it is WP policy to use lower case excpt with official names. Grant | Talk 12:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Axis of evil doesn't say "of the 9/11 era" (or similar) in its name either and I think the terms are different enough so there isn't much confusion. --Sus scrofa 14:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Czech is MISSING

There should be Czech lands between Minor Powers, but it is not here... Here is something in Slovak Republic about Czechoslovakia, but that is not enough. Somebody should add it..--Lycantrophe 07:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Czechs were siding with the Axis? Could you elaborate? Manxruler 13:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Nazis created a puppet state called the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in the Czech area. It's mentioned in the text as of right now but maybe it should have its own section in line with other Axis puppet states of the period.--Sus scrofa 21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Finnish casus belli

The section dealing with Finland's participation in the war claims that Finland joined the war against USSR in 1941 to preserve it's independance. I always thought the main reason for Finnish continuation war was a little more common (even if less noble) in such consequence - revanshism and the desire to return territories seded to USSR as the result of the winter war. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In my studies I've also found the desire to conquer areas populated by ethnic Finns in order to create a Greater Finland incorporating East Karelia to have played a role in the Finnish march into the Soviet Union. After all, the Finnish Army did not stop at the old border, but pushed on further east, at least to Petrozavodsk. Manxruler (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union?

It could be said, that up to Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union was part of the Axis. They invaded eastern 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)

That's not true. It had nothing to do with the false term 'Axis'(I used to believe in the term until I read the other criticisms and proof in the discussion section under Tripartite Pact).

If it were true we would have declared war on Italy when Germany invaded Poland and we declared war on Germany. We didn't. In fact, Italy did not declare war on Poland. I was surprised to learn that Mussolini was actually trying to the last minute to prevent Hitler from invading Poland.

The real reason we didn't declare war on the USSR despite the Nazi-Soviet Pact clearly dividing up Poland together was because we cowardly(though not like we had much choice) pointed out that when we wrote up the French-Polish-British alliance 'to secure and guarantee the sovereignty of Poland' we actually put the word Germany in the treaty. That's why we told the Poles we wouldn't declare war on Stalin for exactly the same reasons we claimed to declare war on Hitler.

It had nothing to do with the term 'Axis'.24.64.52.109 04:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Grant, Australian-Dutch invasion of Portuguese Timor in 1942 is no way compareable with soviet invasion of Poland. Portugese Timor was small practically undefended colony, Poland was at that time probably 5th or 6th in strenght at Europe. Also I really can't understand your logic. Molotov-Ribbendrop pact itsselfly very well proves Stalin's intentions to invade Poland from east. And pact clearly wasn't matter of survival for USSR as Hitler was not in position to fight 2 front war at 1939(even his capabilities for 1 front war were quite limited).

Rorank, Allies also didn't declare war on Spain and Denmark.(if i remember correctly they even never declared war on Vichy france). Still we have those countries in article.--Staberinde 18:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Staberinde, (1) There was no way for the Australians or Dutch to know for sure how the local population would react. Some Timorese hold Australia partly responsible for the 40-70,000 Timorese killed by the Japanese. Some Australians agree. The similarities are there. (2) You say: "pact clearly wasn't matter of survival for USSR as Hitler was not in position to fight 2 front war at 1939". He wasn't fighting on any front at all when the pact was signed. I would submit that lebensraum was the major objective for the Nazis and war with Britain and France was a major inconvenience, albeit one which they thought could be overcome. Stalin was many things but he was not a fool and was not blind to this. Grant65 | Talk 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Then Stalin and Hitler divided eastern-europe with Molotov-Ribbendrop pact there was no war in europe, Poland was not yet invaded, USSR and Germany didn't have any common border, France and UK were not ready to allow Germnay into Poland, Poland itsselfly was quite big country. Portugese timor was small weakly defended colony which was on the way of already fastly advanceing japan. Completely uncompareable situations.--Staberinde 10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, we might also mention the hostilities between Japan and the Soviets in 1938-39. Another reason why they were not prepared for a war in the west in September 1939.

Actually Stab, the opposite could be the interpretation.

The Ruskies actually spanked the Japs good at Lake Hasan(near Vladivostok) in July 1938 and again at Nomonhan on the Khalkhin-Gol river Mongolian/Manchurian border Zhukov actually used all Russia's brand new secret weapon, the T34.

It was because of those to huge defeats that even the Jap right-wingers said 'screw that idea of war with Russia anymore' and that's proven in every history book from Liddel Hart in English to Slavinsky in Russian why the Japanese decided to say 'screw Germany, we'll make friends with Russia ourselves'.

Wanna know why? Because Hitler signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact with Stalin while he knew the Japs and Ruskies were fighting in the Far East. Hell, if you and I were the Japs, we'd take that as the ultimate betrayal. Might as well have Britain sign a Non-Aggression Pact with the Japanese while listening to reports of the attack on Pearl Harbour. How would the Americans view that?24.64.52.109 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a big difference between Poland's forces and the Portuguese forces in Timor; that is irrelevant in terms of why the Soviet and Australian-Dutch invasions of those countries occurred. It was only because of Portugals's military weakness in Asia, and the previously friendly relations between the Portuguese and their invaders that a Poland-type situation did not emerge.

I gotta agree with you there. The Atlantic Charter then Washington Conference that other author fudging the Tripartite Pact page uses to prove what defined us as the 'Allies' clearly says all nations and people, great and small. Saying someone doesn't count because they aren't a major power or have at least say what? 15 million people? that they don't count by rules of international law? That's exactly what Churchill and Roosevelt claimed their founding principles were AGAINST!24.64.52.109 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And the fact remains that the USSR did not make any of the direct contributions that Spain, Denmark (etc) did to contribute to the Nazi war effort. Grant65 | Talk 02:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

USSR invasion of Poland was direct contribution to nazi war effort, it probably was more importnant then Danish and Spanish contributions combined. Also German-Soviet Commercial Agreement was very importnant for germany which lacked raw materials.--Staberinde 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A trade agreement isn't a military alliance. By that measure Sweden's iron and access to its railways made it Germany's most important "ally". As for the rest, we will have to agree to disagree. Grant65 | Talk 09:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Grant, far worse than letting German bombers use Minsk and other airbases even before the Russians invaded, Stalin was giving Hitler all the grain, strategic metals and worse oil totally trumping our naval blockade we used to starve Germany to surrender in the First World War. 24.64.52.109 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I will make one last atempt to convince you that Portugese timor and poland can't be compared(it probably fails but atleast i will try). Portugese timor was small weakly defended colony of a neutral country, allies occupied it to prevent japanese landing there. Allied forces which occupied it fought aganist advanceing japanese.

Now poland was attacked by soviet union in full agreement with germany. USSR and Germany cooperated during invasion, for example Lwow was under german siege but after soviet invasion German troops handed operations over to their new Soviet allies. Soviet invasion made polish Romanian Bridgehead plan useless. Also Nazis and Soviets had joint victory parade in Brest. 250,000 to 450,000 Polish soldiers were taken prisoner of war by the Soviets. Completely different situations, in Timor allies occupied portugese territory to avoid japanese occupation of area, in poland USSR fully cooperated with Germany in destroying polish resistance, agreement for divideing poland had been made already with Molotov-ribbendrop pact.--Staberinde 12:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail. (W. Churchill, 1939.) It seems he was not too disappointed with this fact and did not see it as a help for Germany. The parade in Brest was not victory parade but a parade dedicated to replacing German administration with Soviet one. Allies' forces had many such "joint" parades in the Western Front with German forces when Germans surrendered. One can even find photos where British soldiers stay on a parade along with Germans, which does not give right to claim Britain to be ally of Germany.--Nixer 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Great quote; that says it all. Grant65 | Talk

There are many disputable cases about counting country as member of axis or not. As this article includes other cases like Denmark and Spain and allows reader to decide, then same should be done with USSR.--Staberinde 10:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why not USA?--Nixer 09:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How many allied nations USA invaded in cooperation with nazis?--Staberinde 09:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

National security makes for difficult and controversial decisions. As I have alluded with the case of Portuguese Timor, there are "invasions" and there are invasions. The U.K. and U.S. occupied Iceland. The Allies were not technically at war with Vichy France but still attacked forces on numerous occasions, such as the controversial Attack on Mers-el-Kébir. I doubt that there would have been any question of the USSR invading Poland if (1) the Germans had not already invaded or (2) Poland had sought a defence treaty with the USSR prior to Molotov-Ribbentrop. Grant65 | Talk 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

About 99% of all invasions in the world history(includeing german invasion of poland for example) could be justified as some kind of "national security need" so that is not a real argument(btw, argument that Stalin's deal with Hitler about divideing poland was neccessary security need of USSR can be strongly disputed).--Staberinde 10:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people here seem to be unaware of the fact that part of the definition of terms of the Nazi-Soviet Pact was the Soviet invasion and division of Poland.24.64.52.109 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

According to definition of "Axis power" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_Powers Soviet Union (maybe other countries?) should be excluded from the list.Wikisib 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are breaking through open door. This article does not qualify USSR as axis power, it does not even qualify it as co-belligrent. It simply qualifies USSR as controversial case, mainly because of USSR participation at invasion of Poland.--Staberinde 09:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no debate. These are definitions of co-belligerent:

• A nation or state that carries on war in connection with another
• Co-belligerence - Co-belligerence is waging the war in cooperation against a common enemy without the formal treaty of military alliance. Co-belligerence is a broader and less precise status of wartime partnership as a formal military alliance. Co-belligerents may support each other materially, exchange intelligence and have limited operational coordination. The aims of war of co-belligerents may differ considerably. The term co-belligerence indicates remoteness between the co-belligerent parties, cultural, religious, ideological or otherwise, whereas alliance indicates a corresponding closeness. Co-belligerence may be perceived as a euphemism, where domestically or internationally awkward alliance is explained away.
• A country fighting with another power against a common enemy

The Soviet Union falls in there, regardless of motive. Unless you change the definition of co-belligerent, then this applies. Oberiko 13:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As was said in the World War II article, what you just wrote is a classic case of "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing original research. "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."--Ilya1166 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us a source which says the USSR was an ally before 1941? --LtWinters 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that it was an ally before 1941.--Ilya1166 14:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I would stop using the term 'Axis' as if it were a real military alliance. Even if we assume it referred to the Tripartite Pact instead of the Rome-Berlin Pact only Mussolini claimed, it was obviously renegged upon by the Japanese even before Operation Barbarossa.

Second, if I were a Pole or a Finn, I sure as held would perceive the Soviets as vastly more military allies of the Germans than say the Japanese.

Even as a Brit. It was Moscow, not Tokyo, that was making Berlin all but immune to the Allied naval blockade of Berlin so successful in the previous war.

But we live in a world where our leaders and media and historians can convince us to turn around from chasing the real culprits of America's 9/11 to go after someone else instead and still try to say we should believe it.

When that guy wrote there was never any 'Axis Pact', i thought what a nut. But then I did some reading and despite how many of us say we think it should mean a Berlin-Rome-Tokyo military alliance, it's a falsehood too.

I agree with the original poster of this piece. It's hard for a Pole watching Soviet troops invade your country just a step behind the Nazis and listen to the anglo-saxons say, 'nah, they're not the enemy, Japan is.'

But then our historians still have the majority of us still believing Iraq was behind 9/11? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balderdashedder (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)