Talk:Axis powers/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

RFC, inclusion of Soviet and Poland as Axis Co-belligerent states

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion has come to a halt and is mooted by the subsequent discussion on whether "Axis co-belligerent" is even a meaningful class of country. (involved editor close done just to show this is closed) FOARP (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

---

This RfC has four questions:

1. Poland-section: Should the section on Poland be present?
2. Poland-infobox: Should Poland be designated as an Axis Co-belligerent state in the infobox?
3. USSR-section: Should the section on the USSR be present?
4. USSR-infobox: Should the USSR be designated as an Axis Co-belligerent state in the infobox?

16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Poll

• Yes to Poland-section and USSR-section, but trimming both. No to Poland-infobox and USSR-infobox. While Poland's co-bullying of Eastern European states, in cooperation with Hitler, in 1938 was significant and resulted in territorial gains for Poland, it would be inaccurate to summarize Poland's position as a Co-belligerent in the scope of the entire period. It is appropriate to have a section detailing Polish dealings with Hitler and the Axis, but a one line in the infobox is not appropriate here. The same applies to the USSR, even though the case for inclusion for the USSR is even weaker given that the dealings were more limited in time, in parallel to conflict with Japan, and of a clearly temporary nature to both sides. Other encyclopedic sources such as Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum do not list Poland nor the USSR at all - but they both do cover Finland's cooperation with the Axis.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You got "USSR-section" twice in there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• No to USSR-infobox per detailed oppose in previous section, here. No (with a hint of WP:SNOW and reminding others to not be WP:POINTY) to Poland-infobox per WP:COMMONSENSE. No comment on the others since I didn't check through that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert makes a compelling analysis of sources below. This, additionally with the fact that there are virtually only a few sources about that could support "USSR co-belligerence" The Poland proposal is, I'm quite sure, not to be taken seriously, effectively making it a very minor position (bringing WP:UNDUE into account), leads me to say that dedicated sections on either of Poland or USSR would be out-of-place. Opportunistic bullying (Poland) or taking advantage of weaker neighbours (USSR; no matter how this might offend the sensibilities of some editors) do not make them members of the Axis, and the term co-belligerence being rather rare in academic sources would make this even more out of place. A few short mentions of pre-war diplomatic events (for ex. the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), robustly sourced, remain certainly warranted. Changing to No dedicated sections on both relevant topics. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• No to inclusion of USSR or Poland in the infobox (per the point of Infobox being that it "summarizes key features of the page's subject" - Polish and Soviet interactions in activities that aligned with the Axis powers activities not being a Key part of this articles coverage of the Axis powers. Yes to sections on USSR and/or Poland interactions with the Axis on the assumption that they follow the sources on the subject and aren't making interferences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• No to the infoboxes, yes to a section on each, but I don't want to imply that either the Poland or USSR sections have to be exactly as they are and can't be edited and further improved. But yes to having a section on each. No the the infoboxes for the reasons I and others have stated above and in previous discussions on this page: basically, it's not true that either Poland or the USSR were co-belligerents of the Axis (at any point in time). Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• No infoboxes, yes body-content, per all of the above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Where are the sources and what do they say? - I have not seen any sources describing Poland as a "co-belligerent" or words to that effect. We do have sources describing the USSR as such. There is controversy about whether the USSR was effectively an ally of Germany. There is not any controversy that I am aware of about whether or not Poland was a co-belligerent of Germany because I am yet to see any reliable source saying that Poland could have been considered such. I see a lot of opinions cited above, but no sources. If you want to add a one-sentence mention of Poland's annexation of a bit of Czech territory in the general history this might be due but that's it - everything else is already there. FOARP (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is in any doubt on this, No, a poll cannot be used to overturn WP:V. We cannot hold a poll about whether the article should state something that is not supported by reliable sources. No source states that Poland was a "co-belligerent" of the Axis powers. Sources (e.g., Henry L. Roberts, 'The Diplomacy of Colonel Beck', in Gordon A. Craig and Felix Gilbert (eds.), The Diplomats 1919-1939 (Princeton, 1960), pp.603, 611; Cienciala, A. M. (1999). The Munich crisis of 1938: Plans and strategy in Warsaw in the context of the western appeasement of Germany. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 10(2-3), 57-58; GROMADA, THADDEUS V. “JOSEPH BECK IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT POLISH HISTORIOGRAPHY.” The Polish Review, vol. 26, no. 3, 1981, pp. 65–73 - particularly the review of criticisms of Beck on p. 68-70) are clear that whilst Poland claimed Teschen, they did not co-operate with Germany to get it, nor did they want the Germans to occupy Czechoslovakia. If they sought arrangements with anyone, it was the Hungarians/Romanians (before they were Axis members). Poland's 1934 non-aggression pact with Germany contained no secret protocols - it was exactly what it said it was. FOARP (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, No, Yes, No. Same as the other responders, I think the infobox is not the place for this stuff, but the article body is fine. In all cases, the infobox is for straightforward, uncomplicated facts. Anything that's really complicated should be restricted to prose in the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• *No to the infoboxes, yes to a section on each. But robustly sourced. The Banner talk 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)The USSR was not so backwards as many thought and could see the trouble with Germany coming from a loooooooong distance. Creating a buffer zone and training troops in actual combat was in the military view a good safety measure but was politically "not so popular" (deliberate understatement. The Banner talk 18:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• No to both infobox inclusions, yes to having content about the various antebellum agreements that both Poland and the USSR had with Germany, but not as presented in the diffs. These sections should have headings that make it clear these two countries were not Axis powers, and the actual content of both should be agreed upon beforehand to avoid any disruption to the article. - wolf 21:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• No, No, Yes, Yes. Some info from "Poland" section might be included somewhere, but this does not justify making such section. Key info: "On 31st March 1939 Poland received guarantees from Britain and France, and on 28th April 1939 Hitler repudiated the pact with Poland". Same with Poland in the infobox. The story with USSR was very different. Here Hitler and Stalin concluded the famous pact of aggression, and most important, acted according to their pact by attacking very same Poland together. This is simply a historical fact. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And which reliable source can you cite which supports this status of USSR as co-belligerent in the wider context, besides what I hope is not just your own WP:SYNTH? Again, see the diff on my reasoning above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is described with references in Co-belligerence#Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union_as_co-belligerents_in_Poland with refs: Yes, that co-belligerence lasted only until June 1941, but it was a key factor for decision by Hitler to attack Poland. More sources? Well, I do not think that any serious mainstream historians disputed the fact that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union concluded the MR pact (the secret protocols) and acted accordingly, and not only military [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. No. Yes. Yes. A section on Poland, if properly sourced, is helpful. The section on USSR has existed for years and nobody ever disputed it's relevance. As for the infobox, sources have been presented that clearly describe USSR as a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany, so there's that. But no such sources have been presented for Poland (probably b/c Poland never engaged in military operations on the German side, unlike USSR). Anyway, since no sources are present for Poland being co-belligerent, inclusion of Poland in the infobox would be wrong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to the sections but they should be improved nonetheless. Yes to the USSR-infobox with a footnote that the Soviet Union was co-belligerent only until the Operation Barbarossa started. There were joint military meetings and some coordinated operations by Wehrmacht and Red Army in the eastern Poland. That's enough for inclusion. No to the Poland-infobox. Polish policies in the 1930s were certainly opportunistic but hyenism in neighbourly relations doesn't make Poland a co-belligerent state.--Darwinek (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sort of? No. Yes. Yes (1939). The Soviet Union and Germany jointly planned and executed the invasion and partition of Poland in 1939. They were clearly co-belligerents in 1939. This is supported by scholarly sources and the infobox should note that. We should not rely on popular histories that sweep the complexities of the period under the rug in favour of the simple wartime claim of "France, UK, USSR and USA vs Germany, Italy and Japan". Regarding a section on Poland, I'm worried that its going to immediately fall into WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Would prefer to instead expand the existing history section to provide more detail about the division of Czechoslovakia. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• No, No, Yes, Yes This discussion is like voting on a QAnon theory. Poland was not more co-belligerent than the United Kingdom and France, with their appeasement policy and giving all the countries around to Hitler, only to save peace for themselves. Since its victory in 1920, Poland was preparing itself for the next war against the Soviet Union, and since at least 1935 for a war against Nazi Germany - assuming, that these wars are inevitable. They only didn't know which of them will attack first, and certainly, Poles didn't know that they will attack together. Matrek (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Matrek (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

• Comment : Can we have a SNOW close on question number two? Clearly, that one (which, as I pointed out, is a bit on the POINTY side) is not going to pass as no editor amongst all the above (myself included) has !voted yes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I hate polls, because, in this context, they are against our policy. Instead, I decided to check what a random Wikipedian without any preliminary knowledge of a subject would have learned from sources if they started to search for the answer to this poll's question in Google Scholar. My presumption is that if we put Soviet or Polish flag to the infobox in "Co-belligerent" section, that implies that at least one source clearly says that USSR was the "Axis co-belligerent", AND this opinion represents majority view.

"USSR "axis co-belligerent""7 obscure sources, which are irrelevant to the topic

"Finland "Axis co-belligerent"" hmmm...

Well, just ""Axis co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of the Axis"" not impressive. It looks like the concept of the Axis co-belligerence is not popular in scholarly literature at all.

Ok, although I assume I know virtually nothing about WWII, I still know Finland was a German co-belligerent. Let's check:

"Finland AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" 29 results; most sources clearly describe Finland as Germany's co-belligerent. If we consider Finland as a "positive control", it demonstrates this search procedure works.

Now let's try a "negative control". "Vichy AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" yields 2 irrelevant sources. I checked Bradley&Goldsmith, and I found that that source does not call Vichy "the Axis co-belligerent". The exact wording is " had a nexus to the named enemy". That is, by and large, a confirmation that the idea about Vichy's co-belligerency was proposed by these two authors, and it is not popular.

Now, let's try USSR. "(Soviet OR USSR) AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" yields 29 results, but, the first article (by Gheorghe) is about Romanian co-belligerence, several other sources are about ... Finland co-belligerence, and one source (Blobaum, no citations) is about USSR's co-belligerence.

My conclusions:

• The very term "Axis co-belligerent" is virtually non-existing in literature. Such a generalisation is simply not found in sources.

• The information about the countries that are known to be Germany's co-belligerents can be easily found during a neutral search. Moreover, when I was looking for an information about USSR's co-belligerency, I found information about Finland and Romania despite the fact that that was not my goal.

• The information about the countries that are generally not considered co-belligerents (Vichy) cannot be found using the same approach. That confirms that that approach is correct.

• I even didn't try Poland, because it would be obvious that that information cannot be found (except probably veeery obscure sources).

• The situation with USSR is close to that of Poland: I am sure it is possible to find a source saying that USSR was the Germany's co-belligerent, but the amount of efforts needed for that would be a clear demonstration that the results of that work by no means reflect a commonly accepted/majority viewpoint (obviously, minority views should not be presented in infoboxes).

To summarise, I suggest to stop this nonsense, remove the "Axis co-belligerent" category altogether, and, probably, add Finland under category "Germany/European Axis co-belligerent" and Thailand to "Japan's co-belligerent".

It is quite likely my search procedure is far from ideal, but the most important thing here is that I used the same approach for each country. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Mostly agree with this, except to say that characterising Finland as a "co-belligerent" is basically the POV of Finland's wartime government and a minoirty of modern-day Finnish historians (Finland has largely discarded the "driftwood" theory). There is plenty of opinion that characterises them simply as an Axis member/German ally. Membership of the Axis is a contested concept, with people in a number of countries trying to characterise their governments of the era as not having been in the Axis for various reasons that should not necessarily be taken at face value. FOARP (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, No, Yes, Yes. 1) Poland interacted with the Axis for several years, and it can’t hurt the reader to summarize that history. However, 2) Poland did not fight alongside the Axis after 1 September 1939 (!), or even before. 3) The extensive Soviet-Axis (primarily German, but Italian too) rapprochement between August 1939 and June 1941 has to be mentioned, no question. Finally, 4) Soviet participation crossed the threshold of co-belligerence, with joint invasions, co-ordinated annexations, victory parades, intelligence sharing and more. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

According to which sources? Your !vote reads a lot like WP:SYNTH. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I would point out these sources, as well as the definition of “co-belligerent” provided by the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law: "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not". - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What does it mean "Poland interacted with the Axis" - use to have diplomatic relations with axis powers? I think all European countries had. Did Poland ever conspire with Hitler like the Soviet Union? No. -Matrek (talk)

• Yes. No. Yes. Yes – on grounds documented and argued previously. While there can be elements of subjectivity in approaching such judgments, the preponderance of evidence, I believe, supports my conclusions. Poland was not motivated in its Cieszyn Silesia action by a desire to collaborate with Germany, but by a felt need to redress what Poland saw as a 1919–20 Czech assault on Poland, which had been fighting for its life; whereas the USSR is generally seen as having been a cobelligerent of Germany – each of them harboring a declared intent to hegemonize Europe and eventually the world – in their joint, coordinated September 1939 invasion of Poland. Nihil novi (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, Yes, No, No. The case for inclusion of Poland is strong. Poland signed the first alliance with Hitler in 1934. It then spent most of the 30s bullying its neighbors and collecting scraps of territory allocated to it by Hitler. It bullied Lithuanian alongside Hitler in 1938. It co-operated with Hitler in Czechslovakia, in the Munich conference it was on the side of the Axis overall together with Italy [2]. The allies considered Poland to be in league with Hitler.[3][4]. The case for Soviet inclusion is much smaller. The Soviet agreement was limited to Hitler's previous friend, Poland, which was a long-standing enemy of Russia and that occupied Western Ukraine and Western Belarus (Affirmed by the alliance to belong to the USSR, not Poland). Poland was swiftly overrun by the German forces, and by September 10 was in general retreat with the government in flight. On 17 September, Poland's defeat was manifest and the Germans had already crossed the Vistula, area promised to the USSR, and were racing towards the Bug River. At this late date the USSR decided to enter Poland, so that it would received its Western Ukraine and Belarus territories. The allies welcomed Solviet forces entering Poland as this stopped the Nazi advance east, Churchill himself saying on 1 October 1939 that: "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."[5] In addition to all this, the USSR was engaged in combat with Japan, an Axis power, and its puppets in September 1939. The USSR entering Poland was a mere footnote, an end to a Polish occupation that began in 1920. Polish-Nazi relations between 1934-38 were significant, and the Polish role in World War II was merely limited to being a line in the sand drawn by the Western Powers. The Polish army was swiftly defeated at a very small cost to the Nazis. The allies chose to declare war over Poland not because of any Polish virtue, Poland was seen by the allies as in league with Hitler up until 1939, but because of Hitler breaking promises (Austria, the post-Munich March 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia) and Poland being one state too far. The contribution of the USSR to the alliance was overwhelming, tens of millions of dead (World War II casualties of the Soviet Union), and most of the war in Europe against Hitler was prosecuted by the USSR.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Pact of non agression" as aa "alliance with Hitler"? What kind of nonsens is this? The USSR conspired with 3rd Reich to devide the entire Eastern Europe between them, not just Poland. -Matrek (talk)

• No or Likely (but calls for improvements) No (this should not be even debated) Yes and Yes (per my prior comments) - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• No to all, very briefly describe Polish and Soviet relations with Nazis but not in current/proposed form. This Russian-Polish bickering has now gone way over the top here. Ask yourself the basic question, do other sources covering the Axis Powers as a topic showcase Poland or the Soviet Union as being associated with the Axis? The answer is overwhelmingly no. You can find a source supporting nearly any position on World War II, but the vast majority of sources covering the Axis as a topic do not cover the Soviet Union or Poland as Axis-cooperators (they do cover Axis aggression against them) at all, or if they do they do so briefly. I came here after [seeing this call to arms on the Polish Wikipedia, and in my mind peace in the answer, not fighting over history painting each other as bogeymen.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. No. Yes. Yes, 1. Poland obviously deserve a section, 2. per Biruitorul 3. Obviously deserve also a section per weight 4. Sure, since for a time it was when more Axis powers attacked Poland.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
• Yes to sections on both, no to info boxes on both.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Obvious no to including Poland, obvious yes to including USSR. I also need to point out that an RfC cannot be used to completely ignore facts and sources. Poland never fought alongside the Axis powers; Poland was invaded by Germany and the USSR, operating in unison. That is the very definition of "co-belligerent". Again, this is not really an RfC matter where a "vote" can be pushed for revisionist purposes. Jeppiz (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. No. Yes. No.. A Polish section is absurd and even more misleading than the USSR in the infobox. Srnec (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. No. Yes. Yes. - the proposal for a Polish section appears to be a bit of WP:POINTy Putinite whataboutism (in the sense that this is a propaganda line that's been pushed by Putin recently, see 6th paragraph here for example). For USSR, "co-belligerents" makes more sense for Wikipedia even if most sources use the term "ally". Agree with User:KENGIR somewhere above that the present infobox is fine. Volunteer Marek 00:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC) (added sig later)
• No to infobox, Maybe to sections - The evidence presented thus far suggests that overwhelmingly, academic literature does not describe the USSR or Poland as Axis powers, and should not be listed as such in the infobox. Co-belligerence is not equivalent to membership in the Axis powers unless sources say so. This article can include information in its body about the Axis powers' relations with the USSR, Poland, etc; it's not immediately apparent what degree of depth is appropriate, and should be determined by further editing and not by an RfC at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The proposal isn't to describe either as an Axis power. No one is proposing that. The proposal is to describe one or the other or both as "co-belligerents". For the Soviet Union, this is supported by sources, as you acknowledge. So I'm not sure if I understand your comment. Volunteer Marek 03:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm largely swayed by Paul Siebert's argument so far, that based on the level with which it is used in the literature, at the infobox level co-belligerence is a valid way to summarize Finland and Thailand's status at most. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, but fair enough. Volunteer Marek 04:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say even for Finland this is probably over-stating it, since the idea that Finland was only a co-belligerent is basically the POV of the Finnish wartime government and a minority of modern-day Finnish historians. For Thailand and Finland we have sources explicitly identifying them as Axis members. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to hedge a bit by saying "at most" because I didn't want to risk poison pilling the discussion by making what we decide for USSR or Poland dependent on changes to Finland, but you're likely correct that even Finland's position as "co-belligerent" isn't well-supported. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes to Poland-section and USSR-section. No to Poland-infobox and USSR-infobox - The infobox should be used to summarize instances of only major and long term collaboration/co-belligerence. Nevertheless the context collaboration/co-belligerence should be explained within the main body of the article.--Catlemur (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"The infobox should be used to summarize instances of only major and long term collaboration/co-belligerence". I agree. However, do not you think that MP pact leading to the attack by Hitler on Poland (that event started WWII!) and the coordinated attack by USSR to the same Poland two weeks later was an example of MAJOR collaboration/co-belligerence. Hence it must be in infobox.My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

How can you say "yes" to section which has no supporting references that would demonstrate why it should be on a page about Axis countries? This poll can't simply be used as a way of disapplying WP:V. FOARP (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe to sections for both, No to infobox. Per Paul Siebert's search, I don't think we can say that this accurately characterizes the weight of scholarly opinion. However, including reasonable length historical background in the article will allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusion. (t · c) buidhe 11:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. No. Yes. Yes. For reasons already stated,Eccekevin (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. No. Yes. No. Poland and USSR fought along with Germany (in Czechoslovakia and Poland, respectively), but there are not widely associated with the Axis, bu with the anti-Axis camp; listing them along countries such as Finland would confuse the regular readers.Anonimu (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• No to cramming the infobox, I'm fine with a section on Polish & Soviet activities with Axis powers. - The infobox is for summarizing key aspects (as others have pointed out), let the finer details and exceptions be explained by summarizing reliable sources in the body text of the article, not by warring over the top of the page. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• No to all and remove co-belligerant segment from the infobox per user:Paul Siebert's analysis. The sections on all cobelligerants can be removed too, because with 111K of readable prose, the articles is WP:TOOLONG.Mottezen (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, no, yes, no (that is, include in the body but not the infoboxes.) They're simply not generally described as "Axis co-belligerents" (whatever that somewhat vague term means) in the sources, so putting it in the infobox, which can't really explain it, is nonsense - things like that in infoboxes need to be extremely, unambiguously clear while also being central to the topic, none of which applies here. I would support removing the co-belligerent bit from the infobox entirely on these grounds - it's just too vague and ultimately feels like WP:OR in context, especially given the editors trying to come up with their own personal definitions for it above (if the sources don't define it in clear and unambiguous terms, we shouldn't be using it in an infobox.) However, both had agreements with the Axis powers of one sort or another and these should be explained in the appropriate part of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I have altered the order to match with what you say (question 1 and 3 are the sections), if it doesn't bother you. To be clear, "appropriate part of the article", do you think that would necessarily imply/require a separate section for each? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding Poland - the Polish-German agreement was in 1933. The treaty which formed the Axis powers was in 1935. There never was any "bilateral" agreement between Poland and Axis powers. There was the whole mess with Munich and Zaolzie but that was a general agreement and it was agreed to by Western Powers. Calling that a "bilateral treaty" with the Axis is like saying that Britain and France signed a bilateral treaty with the axis because they agreed to Munich. Volunteer Marek 18:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The argument to include a separate section on Poland is an argument to include a section on every country in the world simply because "it's interesting". There's nothing that isn't amazingly WP:UNDUE that isn't already said elsewhere in the article already. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rather no, obviously no, yes, rather no. Poland was not a co-belligerent for obvious reason: it didn't participate in war on Axis side. It only took an opportunity to force Czechoslovakia to cede part of territory, but it was proceeded in peaceful way, maybe apart from some incidents. The Germans didn't fight in Czechoslovakia either. A political support in part of German goals is other thing - but what to say about Western countries, which agreed to give a part of a sovereign state then?.. So Poland didn't fight along with Axis, and such infobox is misleading readers, to say least. A section explaining Polish relations could stay, but it is not mandatory. As for Soviet Union, it obviously was Axis co-belligerent in 1939 - it had an agreement with Germany to invade Poland, and invaded it with force, helping German armies. In Finland, Baltic states and Besarabia, the USSR forced own interests only, but in Poland it was also obliged to help the Germans, so it was a co-belligerent. However, placing it in the infobox would be too much simplification, without explaining the context, limited to 1939. Pibwl ←« 12:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes to Poland-section and USSR-section, but trimming both. No to Poland-infobox and USSR-infobox. It would be inappropriate to simply list them in the infobox when the article lead clearly defines the Axis as "a military coalition that fought in World War II against the Allies", and links in the infobox are to the Tripartite Pact. That said, it would not be wrong to have some lesser detail on nations not "in" the Axis relating to the Axis goals or success. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• no. no. no. no We should follow general terms, which Axis is described as ""a military coalition that fought in World War II against the Allies". If we start to focus on other minor facts, it would disturb and disrupt what original article tells for -- Wendylove (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Call to arms on Polish Wikipedia

Over at the Polish Wikipedia, User:Hanyangprofessor2 which is a User:Piotrus alternative account, posted this call to arms. Piotrus is blaming "Russian editors" for comparing the USSR to Poland and "starting a vote" at en: Talk: Axis_powers # Poll. Piotrus is calling Polish editors to vote and saying that if English is a problem they should: "the Google translation from Polish to English works very well, right button in Chrome and you can translate the whole discussion, and it is also easy to translate your comment / voice from Polish to English and paste there". I posted a note at AN.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I take a very dim view of the WP:CANVASS issues that this discussion now suffers from, per the above. I have WP:ECP'd this article talk page for one month, which is an extreme measure, to be sure. This is an WP:ACDS action which I will be recording in the log momentarily. El_C 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: that was a bad idea from Piotrus, but looking at the above discussion I see that all but three accounts in the above discussion are en-wiki EE regulars and pretty much none of them Polish. I don't think any of them have been canvassed. The three accounts which are either brand new or low edit count are the OP, Astral Leap who started this WP:POINTy RfC and about whom concerns have been expressed previously ([6]), Erin Vaxx, which created an account in Sept 2020, made a couple edits, then immediately jumped into this controversy when it began. These two obviously were not canvassed by Piotrus. The third account is Matrek and I guess it's possible they came here as a result of Piotrus' post on pl wiki though their comment makes a coherent and well thought out argument which means it should be taken at face value.

Oh yeah. Bob not snob too I guess. Volunteer Marek 21:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Which means that whatever canvassing happened has had essentially no impact on the outcome here. Volunteer Marek 21:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, my notice above is just that — a notice. This isn't the place to discuss this matter at length. The place to do so is at WP:AN, where the discussion remains ongoing. El_C 22:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: Piotrus has been topic-banned for one month by El_C as an AE; and Astral has been given a one-week block for edit warring with Volunteer Marek (although they're appealing on a technicality - in any case I haven't looked at the specifics, just notifying on this talk page in case anybody missed it/is not aware of the issue). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think that having WP:Canvass is fine, merely as a fair advice, but enforcing it with topic bans and blocks is damaging for WP. We must encourage, not discourage communications in the project. For example, someone inviting friends from another project to participate here is actually a good idea, assuming that they will contribute constructively. If these "friends" (whoever) will not contribute constructively and will behave badly here, then yes, block them on spot, very simple. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• My personal view is the above poll is simply a WP:POINTy attempt to get around WP:V. We simply don't have sources laying out the view of Poland espoused above as being a German ally. We do have (some) sources stating this about the USSR. But ultimately this is a page about the Axis, and we don't have any sources stating that the USSR was an Axis member. FOARP (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• And if (say) he had left a similar message on the Russian wiki about "Polish editors" fine, it would not have been canvassing. But we cannot allow the project to be highjacked by nationalism (and no I never invite friends from another project, even when I think their input might be valuable, its not as if we are a well-kept secret). Would it be OK to (say) post on Stormfront "Hey they are trying to say the nazis killed jews, just pop over and have a look"? No it would not, and this is the point, a rule has to be that, a rule. It cant be a rule only when its conviniant to me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree: it would not be appropriate to invite "friends" from Stormfront. But I hope that Polish WP is not Stormfront. As about Russian wiki, there are actually many messages out there about disputes on English WP. As you can imagine, many guys on ruwiki are not exactly "pro-Western". Under no circumstances I reported anyone involved in such cross-wiki communications to ANI. And I think that was right. BTW, they had at least two EEML-like affairs on ruwiki, and some participants were editing here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Painting this as a simple attempt to ìnvite "friends from another project" is disingenuous. Piotrus is (like VM and other regulars) certainly aware of the EE ArbCom situation, and justifying it as an attempt to bait a potential sock is no excuse. What AL did is nigh inexcusable, but doesn't change the fact that WP:CANVASS isn't exactly a secret either... Anyway, this discussion has been had at AN and there's also now a block appeal from AL that needs (IMHO) rejecting, this unfortunate parenthesis should for the time being be closed and the regular course of events hopefully resumed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This poll is moot

The entire concept of a country being "co-belligerent" with the Axis is WP:OR as ably shown by Paul Siebert, and deprecated by consensus below. See below for a thorough exposition based on Cienciala and H.L. Roberts of why the idea that Poland worked with Germany is at best WP:FRINGE. This was always a badly-formatted RFC as it connects issues that are not connected, based on a theory that is WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still too long: cut bit on Gyula Gömbös

Current text length is 108kb of readable prose. Per WP:TOOBIG we should be looking to get it down below 100kb at least. I see two very long and detailed paragraphs about Gyula Gömbös's negotiations with Mussolini and Hitler. Gyula Gömbös died in 1936, these negotiations did not obviously do much (anything?) to advance the formation of the Axis. Hungary only later became part of the Axis, under a different ruler. This is barely, if at all, related to the topic and is an obvious candidate for cutting down. We anyway already have a para summarising Gombos's minor role in trying to bring about a German-Italian alliance so there's no need to go over it again in more detail. Gombos was obviously a fascist and I'm not trying to excuse anything about him - this is simply about getting the length of the article under control. FOARP (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've clipped the paragraphs on Gyula Gombos and tried to cut down all the stuff on pre-Hitler negotiations between Italy and Germany (which are also very peripheral to an article on the topic of the Axis Powers), but we're still at 102kb of readable prose. Other than maybe splitting the article (Axis puppet states?) not sure what to do. FOARP (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've shortened the end bit about Axis co-operation, as too much of it was about US policy, not Axis policy, and as such peripheral to the main topic. This brings it down to 100kb which is at least getting close to not being too large per the guide. FOARP (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

Please add the Iraq to the Infobox with Thailand, Croatia and other countries because on the talk page there is consensus on the talk page, and many reliable sources say that it was an Axis power until it lost the Anglo-Iraqi War in 1943, and Iraq is not on the infobox for some reason. Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 21:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The section directly above shows there is not consensus for this addition. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

This was removed from the "German-Japanese Axis-cooperation" section. It should be put back because it explains why Germany and Italy declared war:

The US had effectively abandoned its neutral stance in September 1940 with the Destroyers for Bases Agreement, before dropping all pretence of neutrality in March 1941 with the beginning of Lend-Lease. Admiral Erich Raeder had urged Hitler to declare war throughout 1941 so the Kriegsmarine could begin sinking American warships escorting British convoys. Following the "Greer incident" on 4 September 1941, when the German U-boat U-652 fired on the American destroyer Greer, Roosevelt confirmed that all US ships escorting convoys had been ordered to "shoot on sight" at all Axis ships and submarines in the Atlantic. This order effectively declared naval war on Germany and Italy. In the "Kearny incident" on 17 October 1941 the USS Kearny dropped depth charges on German U-Boats, before being torpedoed by the U-568 – 11 American servicemen were killed and 22 injured. The US destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed and sunk by the submarine U-552 on 31 October 1941. Westerhaley (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding .. as it is annoying to see it at bottom.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. If it was removed and not immediately reverted then clearly there should be a discussion about readding it. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Shoot on sight has got to be mentioned as it confirmed US warships were under orders to attack all Axis ships and U-Boats in the Atlantic. (Westerhaley (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

Albania

Shouldn't Albania be listed as a puppet state among the Axis powers in the infobox, consistent w the text in the body of the article? --2603:7000:2143:8500:7D69:47C7:C222:22D1 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. (Westerhaley (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC))

Perhaps someone else can make the addition - I cannot, as it needs a confirmed user. --2603:7000:2143:8500:30F2:25CC:F9AA:97CC (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing any other puppet governments listed there. We should keep it to only powers call axiz powers by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The below text lists the puppet governments, and discusses them in a number of paragraphs. It is one of the focuses of the article. The purpose of the infobox is to summarize the text. 2603:7000:2143:8500:30F2:25CC:F9AA:97CC (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And Albania is not the only one, so why singlee it out? The reason why we do not list anything other than nations ideitifedntifiedy RS in the infobox is to avoid clutering it up with a list of (in some cases) highly contentiious additions. Inclusing one nations out of many adds nothings, including them all will just caused endless conflict. It is best therefore to have a clear inclusion critirea.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I am not suggesting ONLY Albania. All puppet states. Reflected here. It's a major section of this article. I just happened to be reading about the Albania puppet state, which brought me here, but all should obviously be reflected.

This should not cause any conflict -- the article itself in the below text clearly identifies puppet states, and any conflict should rear its head there. The inclusion criteria is the criteria of wp:infobox - summarize the below text.

And this is not needless cluttering - it is what an infobox is supposed to do. wp:infobox. We don't, on that ground, delete from the Allies of World War II infobox the other Allied combatant states. And I would think the purpose of the infobox is especially served in both cases. 2603:7000:2143:8500:30F2:25CC:F9AA:97CC (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

But are these nations "key features of the page's subject" or ancilery subjects? Afer all the page is about "the axis powers".Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It is 14 paragraphs of the article. Clearly key. 2603:7000:2143:8500:30F2:25CC:F9AA:97CC (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Less than about a quarter of the article, so no I do not think it is a key part. But I think it is time for others to ship in.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

14 paragraphs, a quarter of the article, strikes me as significant, substantial, and key. It need not be a majority of the article. Agree that it is time for others to share their thoughts. Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:1093:C288:A566:8A4D (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Why? - We need something more than just a source stating that they were a puppet state. We need a reliable, independent source (more than one I would say, just to make sure it is not a WP:FRINGE view) saying that they were an Axis Power. The infobox is a list of countries that fit the topic of the article (which is the Axis Powers). There is simply no space in the infobox to go into a detailed discussion of degrees of membership of the Axis that falls below being an Axis Power - this is what the article is for. The Axis is the subject of a lot of writing in reliable sources so if Albania is regarded as having been an Axis Power then this should be easy to show. Arguments based on how the page about the Allies is arranged are pure WP:WAX. FOARP (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Iraq as an Axis Power Suggestion

Should we put Iraq as an Axis Power because it fought against the Allies in the Anglo-Iraqi War (part of WWII)? (I would have done it, but I can't edit an extended confirmed protected page, when I'm only autoconfirmed). Thanks, Cupcake547 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC).

We do mention Iraq.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven - Honestly suggest we just hat-note this talk page with something saying "Wikipedia requires all content be verifiable, for this reason no country will be listed in the infobox as an Axis power unless independent, reliable sources on the topic of WW2 can be presented explicitly describing them as an Axis power. If you want a country to be included in the inbox, please find sources to support this.". Otherwise from now until infinity this page will just be endless discussions about why El Salvador isn't listed in the infobox. FOARP (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, seems good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. FOARP (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I found a few reliable sources that show Iraq was an Axis Power: [7], [8] and [9]. All of them say that Iraq fought against the British and cooperated with the Nazis, so we should add Iraq to the infobox.

What do they actually say, (for example Britannica only uses the term axis twice, neither to say "Iraq was an axis power". Being an ally of an Axcis power and being part of the Axis is the the same th8ing (please see the RFC above).Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Number 33 says this:

During the Second World War Arab nationalists established close links with Germany in an attempt to gain Iraq independence. Rashid Ali set up a pro-German government in Baghdad and in May 1941 the British Army invaded Iraq and remained [there] until October 1947.

— Spartacus Educational, Iraq (4/18/2021)

and this one (Brittanica) says this:

Under the influence of pan-Arab leaders, public opinion in Iraq changed radically after France’s fall, becoming especially hostile to Britain because other Arab countries remained under foreign control. Pan-Arabs urged Iraqi leaders to free Syria and Palestine and achieve unity among Arab countries. Extremists advocated alliance with Germany as the country that would foster independence and unity among Arabs.

Rashīd ʿAlī was at first unwilling to side with the extremists and gave lip service to the Anglo-Iraqi alliance. Dissension among the Iraqi leaders, however, forced him to side with the pan-Arabs. Leading army officers also fell under pan-Arab influences and encouraged Rashīd ʿAlī to detach Iraq from the British alliance. During 1940 and 1941, Iraqi officers were unwilling to cooperate with Britain, and the pan-Arab leaders began secret negotiations with the Axis Powers. Britain decided to send reinforcements to Iraq. Rashīd ʿAlī, while allowing a small British force to land in 1940, was forced to resign early in 1941, but he was reinstated by the army in April and refused further British requests for reinforcements.

— Encyclopædia Brittanica, Iraq - World War II and British intervension, 1939–45 (4/18/2021)

Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 15:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC).

So no then not "axis member" or "part of the Axis".Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: No, this source says: "Iraq was a co-belligerent of the Axis, fighting the United Kingdom in the Anglo-Iraqi War of 1941." in their Iraq section. Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 15:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC).

And we had a discusion on this very concept and it was decided that unless a nation is explicitly called a member of the axis (not a co-belligerent for example) we do not add it to the infobox. This would apply to Iraq just as much as Russia or Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to back up Steve here, the topic here is "Axis Powers", so why list a country that no reliable source calls an "Axis Power" in the infobox? We need reliable sourcing showing that Iraq is regarded to have been an Axis Power, and we don't have that. FOARP (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Vichy France

No state should be identified as an Axis Power in the infobox unless reliable sources can be presented explicitly identifying it as such. Doing anything else is simply a WP:V-fail. WP:OR-style arguments like "some sources describe it as a puppet or co-belligerent and I think this is the same as being an actual Axis Power" don't wash. If a country really was regarded as an Axis Power, given everything that has been written about the Axis over the decades since WW2, don't you think there'd be multiple reliable sources saying exactly that? FOARP (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

PS - This was discussed in detail above, but to be clear why we should require a reliable source saying explicitly that a country was an Axis member/power, consider the following cases:

• "I think co-belligerents should be included" -> OK, why? This will result in countries that no source actually calls an Axis power being listed here in the infobox for the page that is about Axis powers (e.g., Iran). Is "Axis co-belligerent" even really a thing?
• "I think puppet states should be included" -> Again, why? Were puppet states necessarily "Axis Powers"? Or were just some of them "Axis Powers" and others not? And if they were Axis Powers shouldn't there be sources calling them exactly that?
• "I think all Tripartite pact signatories should be included" -> But Yugoslavia signed the Tripartite pact and doesn't seem to be regarded as an Axis Power in reliable sources, whilst Finland didn't sign it and is described as an Axis power in reliable sources, so how does this make sense? Anyway, don't we already have an article on the Tripartite pact?
• "I think all Anti-Comintern Pact signatories should be included" -> But Denmark signed the ACP. No reliable source seems to describe them as an Axis Power.
• "I think country X should be included because they had an alliance of some kind with an Axis power" -> OK, but does any reliable source say that signing this alliance was the same as being an Axis Power? Many countries had agreements of various kinds with the Axis powers, so why does this agreement in particular make them an Axis power? Shouldn't we have a reliable source saying that this is the case before we put this in the infobox?
  

All this said I am not against adding more countries, or taking away countries from the infobox but doing so has to be based on what the reliable sources say about those countries. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• • I agree, if RS do not say it we should not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Vichy France was neutral. It refused to declare war on the UK in 1940. (Westerhaley (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC))

Doesn’t Bowman say “Axis Countries” not “Powers”? Which is the source used for a lot of the states listed. Also it has bee discussed in the past why for SOME of the states, the “generic name” isn’t correct due to identity. This isn’t the same as Bulgaria which was usually named as such in sources discussing during WWII. However puppet states installed during WWII had specific names which history used to denote it. OyMosby (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Bowman says "powers", but this isn't as important as simply having a source saying something to the effect that the country was actually a member of the Axis. I don't think Bowman is a particularly good source because it's very general, but it is at least a history book from a reputable publisher (HW Wilson). Other sources (e.g., Dinardo) are better but more focused (e.g., Dinardo is only about the European Axis). Regarding official names, see the discussion above - it makes no sense to use official names for some states but not others, and is definitely POV. Plenty of sources simply directly refer to NDH as "Croatia" (e.g., Britannica, Dinardo) so this idea that it reflects historical sources carries little water.

Referring to NDH as NDH is not POV, sorry. On maps, Bulgaria is Bulgaria, but Independent State of Croatia is debited. I would imagine there is a reason historians and cartographers intentionally do this. It’s because NDH includes Croatia and Bosnia and part of Serbia. Croatia does not include Bosnia or Serbia. Majority of sources refer to it as such. Otherwise that would be definitely “POV” and gives a different impression. I understand that NDH containing the name “Croatia” would lead people to think “well surely’Croatia’ would be the abbreviated name”. I used to think this too before realizing it isn’t interchangeable that way. I get the strive for what you perceived as consistency but in this case it is doing the opposite from what I see. Slovakia I suppose may not be the same situation. Vichy France is another example of specific naming. It’s my reasoning for my edits at least. OyMosby (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"Majority of sources refer to it as such" - I doubt this is true of English-language sources and would like to see some evidence that this is indeed the majority in the context of their membership of the Axis powers, given that standard reference texts in English about WW2 (e.g., Britannica, the Library of Congress companion) do not call it that. That a country included parts of other countries within their borders is hardly a reason not to call them by their common name (see: Germany, Japan, Italy). It is POV to use the official name of one state but not of others. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Weird thing to question. One can look at the sources on this page and them referencing it as “Independent State of” as the actual title. Unless you thought I meant most sources never mentioning just “Croatia” which is not what I meant. This shouldn’t need such special proof or be controversial. Look to be more specific with my point, is Vicny France pov? It was listed before with its official name. Please refrain from further accusing me of bad faith. POV claims imply negative connotations. I do apologize for reverting the box in the first place as I thought this was in connection to a mass talk last year not this year. I recall you taking part in both. I was not aware a part two discussion took place in February this year. Wish I knew....Obviously if no one agrees with me on here than I am obligated to go with your decision. CheersOyMosby (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

One can look at the sources on this page and see how most of them say "Croatia". Here's all the ones presently available online that mention the country:

• 1) Britannica: "Croatia"
• 2) History of World War II, Cooke: "Croatia"
• 3) The imperial nexus: the Second World War and the Axis in global perspective, Hedinger: "Croatia"
• 4) Encyclopaedia of WWII, Tucker & Roberts: "Croatia"
• 5) Hungary and the Holocaust Confrontation with the Past, Time Cole: "Ustashi regime"
• 6) Holocaust Learning Center, Jasenovac: "so-called Independent State of Croatia"
• 7) The Library of Congress World War II companion, Wagner et al: "Croatia"
• 8) Germany and the Axis Powers from Coalition to Collapse, DiNardo: "Croatia"
• 9) Facts About The American Wars, Bowman: "Croatia"
• 10) Nazi Empire, German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler, Baranowski: "Croatia"
• 11) Axis Rule In Occupied Europe, Lemkin: "Croatia"
• 12) Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide, Macdonald: "Ustasha controlled Independent State of Croatia"
• 13) The Death Camps of Croatia Visions and Revisions, 1941-1945, Israeli: "Croatia" (see title)

I do not see evidence in the above that, when discussing Croatia's membership of the Axis, reliable sources tend to distinguish Croatia as the Independent State of Croatia. The evidence is that detailed references on WW2 in Croatia do mention the name and I can see that's why you're adopting this position, but when discussing the membership of the Axis, particularly when listing membership of the Axis as we are doing here, "Croatia" is clearly favoured by reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said before I am fine with your version being there was consensus. But I want to address you last reply specifically tow sections. One is ” I do not see evidence in the above that, when discussing Croatia's membership of the Axis, reliable sources tend to distinguish Croatia as the Independent State of Croatia” That wasn’t my specific claim. So no wonder the “sources don’t agree, Mosby”. I wasn’t making that argument. I said Independent State of Croatia in general being mentioned in the source not under specific conditions I appreciate the time you took to list all these. But you may have misunderstood my claim. A historian saying Croatia signed the Tripartite Pact doesn’t imply ISC isn’t acknowledged. The person is referencing that state. It is an assumption to say they don’t acknowledge the ISC title. https://www.britannica.com/place/Independent-State-of-Croatia Britanica does. Again random pick, I look at Encyclopedia of WWII and it mentioned Independent State of Croatia 6 times... I bet all if not most of the sources you put forth do as well. Again I DID NOT say these books don’t mention just “Croatia” as shorthand for the full title. “ The evidence is that detailed references on WW2 in Croatia do mention the name and I can see that's why you're adopting this position, but when discussing the membership of the Axis, particularly when listing membership of the Axis as we are doing here, "Croatia" is clearly favoured by reliable sources.” That’s OR and POV, no? When discussing membership the state didn’t switch names it was still NDH. When did this rule of “specific name Mentioned when discussing Axis” come into play? The sources state that that state was an Axis state. We agree on that. But whichever name version an author used to convey this seems odd as the authors do not say the name changed. Also there is The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia and Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia instead of The Holocaust in Bulgaria . Likely a reason why. Also a search of the full name turns up a plethora of sources stating the title. Again a third time to be clear I did not say most books did not mention the ahort hand name of just “Croatia” instead of reiterating the long name every time the country is mentioned. Not sure about describing it as a “Power”. If literal with the name, why assume they were a Power? I don’t see most sources saying they were an “Axis Power” but yet that is the sub category in the info box.Again I am fine with your version and consensus. I personally still see this as faulty logic. But we can agree to disagree :) OyMosby (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Not opposed to using the full-name in the text of the article or in other articles, but when listing Axis powers the reliable sources (and common sense) favours the short-form. As an aside I really wish the infobox weren't the thing people concentrate so much on with this article - this article should be a GA and the continuous infobox war means it can't be. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

Shoot on sight needs to be mentioned in the German-Japanese Axis-cooperation section. Westerhaley (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

An editor removed this without explanation from the relevant section: Following the "Greer incident" on 4 September 1941, when the German U-boat U-652 fired on the American destroyer Greer, Roosevelt confirmed that all US ships escorting convoys had been ordered to "shoot on sight" at all Axis ships and submarines in the Atlantic. (Westerhaley (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC))

Can you explain what this has to do with the subject of the article?Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It regards the undeclared war between Germany and the United States in the Atlantic prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor: https://www.cfr.org/blog/twe-remembers-fdrs-shoot-sight-fireside-chat (Westerhaley (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC))

Yes, but what does this have to do with the subject of the article "the Azixs powers". I can see what this might add to an article about the allied powers, but what does this tell us about the Azis?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It explains why Hitler and Mussolini declared war. (Westerhaley (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC))

Only if an RS says it does.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple sources saying it does: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/secret-revealed-america-was-war-nazi-germany-1941-173614 (Westerhaley (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC))

That is an anonymous blog. But if you can find a decent source, by all means we can say that the USA as in a state of undeclared war.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In December 1940 Admiral King said the United States was already at war with Germany. (Westerhaley (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC))

Take note of the actual subject, which is co-operation between Axis powers. In what way is American policy (which is what "shoot on sight" was) anything but peripheral to this? In an article that is already far too long, and for subject matter that is already adequately covered on other pages, why is this something that needs covering here? FOARP (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Japan was allied with Germany, so an attack on one Axis member was seen as an attack on the entire Axis. (Westerhaley (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC))

So? Are you trying to say that the USA's attacks on German subs provoked Japan into war?Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Japan was aware of Rainbow Five. (Westerhaley (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC))

And? You needed RS making the connection, we can't imply a connection based upon what we think may have happeened.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to see RS sources for the claim that 1) the Japanese knew about "shoot on sight", and 2) that it influenced their decision to go to war with the USA. FOARP (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Roosevelt publicly confirmed shoot on sight on 11 September 1941: https://www.cfr.org/blog/twe-remembers-fdrs-shoot-sight-fireside-chat (Westerhaley (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC))

And point 2)? Unless reliable sources say this influenced Japanese decision-making this is still OR. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It was what the Japanese representatives said when Hitler and Ribbentrop agreed to declare war on the US on 17 November 1941. Japan could no longer ignore the Flying Tigers and US aid to China, while Germany and Italy could not ignore shoot on sight and the increasingly frequent attacks on U-Boats by American ships in the Atlantic. (Westerhaley (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC))

Sources?Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned on page 784 of "Hitler: A Life" by Peter Longerich. (Westerhaley (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC))

What does it say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The Japanese agreed war with the United States was inevitable in view of increasing attacks on Axis submarines since the beginning of shoot on sight in September 1941. (Westerhaley (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC))

But does not say this was a reason they went to war?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It was because the US was attacking Japan's main ally. Hitler had told the Japanese to avoid war with the United States and instead to attack Singapore, but after shoot on sight began that advice was redundant. (Westerhaley (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC))

Does it say that?Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Avoiding war was no longer an option after the undeclared war in the Atlantic began. Admiral King said the US was at war with Germany by December 1940. (Westerhaley (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC))

Something being inevitable does not mean it was the reason it occurred. And if the US had been at war with Germany since 1940, why did the Japanese wait until almost the end of 1941 before attacking? Yes they may have thought it was inevitable, but the reason they went to war in December of 41 may have been more immediate. You need a source that says They declared war in 1941 to support gmeermany", or some such. Anything else is wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hitler had agreed on 17 November 1941 that he would declare war in support of any attack by Japan on the United States. The Flying Tigers had been operation in China since April. (Westerhaley (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC))

What? You are talking about Japan's declaration of war, not Germany's. I am out of this now, you need RS that says "japan declared war on the USA in support of Germany" unless you do its wp:or and wp:synthesis, and you may take it I would oppose any edit based upon that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)