Talk:Axis powers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Croatia and Serbia

Pavelić's so-called "Indepedent State of Croatia" is no different than Nedić's "Serbian Government of National Salvation." They were both puppet regimes created by Germany. To label Croatia as an Axis collaborator without also labeling Serbia as such is not only erroneous, it is offensive, akin to selective Holocaust denial.

The Kingdom of Yugoslavia, its government dominated by Serbs, signed the Tripartite Pact with Hitler, and when Yugoslavia was dissolved following the German occupation, General Nedić's Serbian government reaffirmed the Pact.

General Nedić's government was fully functional, controlled its own military and police forces, and enjoyed substantial popular support. Its Serbian Volunteer Corps wore the uniform of the Royal Yugoslav Army:

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=90

Moreover, Nedić's Serbia enthusiasitically supported the Holocaust and was the first European nation to be declared "free of Jews."

http://balkan-studies.blogspot.com/2006/06/serbia-carried-holocaust-against-jews.html

http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosta/licnosti/cohen.5.html

I do not deny that Croat nationalists cooperated with Germany, but Serbia was no less a collaborator than Croatia. In fact, Serb tyranny is largely to blame for Croat cooperation with the Germans.

I do not see how the Holocaust is relevant to the issue at hand. Your other points may be relevant.TchussBitc 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Debate with White Guard

I am Grungoria.

I agree with these basic classifications: Major Axis Power, Minor Axis Power, Axis Co-Belligerent, Axis Collaborator and Axis Puppet.

White Guard objects to listing the puppet regimes in Norway, Serbia and Greece as Axis Puppets. He makes the strange argument that these puppet regimes should not be listed because they were created by the Germans. Well, duh! That is the very definition of a puppet.

White Guard objects to the listing of Denmark as an Axis collaborator. He makes the strange argument that Denmark's collaboration should be ignored because Denmark was a weak country that was not in a position to resist. This, again, is a stupid argument. Luxemborg and Holland were weak countries in no position to resist, but resist they did. They declared war, they fought until their countries were overrun, and then they formed governments-in-exile in London to continue the war.

Denmark collaborated. Denmark accepted Hitler's offer of "protection" and permitted itself to be occupied without resistance. Denmark never declared war or formed a government-in-exile. Denmark's lawful government remained in Denmark, under German protection ("protectorate government"). Denmark assisted and cooperated with the German occupation forces, placing its police and military forces at Germany's disposal. Denmark coordinated its foreign policy with Germany, breaking relations with Germany's enemies and signing the Anti-Comintern Treaty of 1941 with Germany, Italy, Japan and the other Axis powers. Denmark even provided torpedo boats to the German Navy, not to mention Danish volunteers for the Waffen SS. The Danes may be fine people who did not "like" collaborating with Germany, but this is an encyclopedia of facts and collaborate Denmark did!

White Guard objects to the listing of Spain as an Axis collaborator. He gives no reason for this ridiculous objection. Spain clearly collaborated with the Axis. Beginning in 1940, Generalissmo Franco publicly and repeatedly declared Spain to be a nonbelligerent member of the Axis. In 1941, he dropped the nonbelligerence, sending the Blue Division of 20,000 Spanish volunteers to fight on Germany's Eastern Front.

White Guard objects to the listing of Croatia as a minor Axis power, saying that it should instead be listed as an Axis puppet. Here there is room for reasoned disagreement. Unlike the puppet regimes of Norway, Serbia and Greece which enjoyed virtually no public support and were not recognized even by other Axis powers, the Croat state achieved a degree of legitimacy. The Croat government enjoyed public support and achieved international recognition. I believe that Croatia should be listed in the same category with Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria, not the puppet regimes.

White Guard suggests that Sweden and Switzerland be listed as Axis collaborators because of their trade relations with Germany. I disagree in both instances. Although Sweden did collaborate by secretly permitting transit to German troops through Swedish territory, neither collaborated to the extent of Vichy France, Spain or Denmark, which were open in their support of German foreign policy.

White Guard suggests that the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia should be listed as a puppet state. Germany viewed the Protectorate as a part of Greater Germany in the process of being Germanified, not as a separate country, but I would not object to listing it with Serbia, Greece and Norway if it advances the completion of the article.

REPLY TO THE ABOVE.

It's obvious to me now that you are not a native English speaker because you have clearly misunderstood some of the points I have been making. Anyway, let me clarify the issues.

SHADOW STATES. I do not object to the inclusion of the collaborators in Norway, Serbia and Greece because they were patronised by the Germans, but because they had no support or authority, and cannot be considered as 'governments' in any meaningful sense whatsoever. I tried to make this point in relation to Quisling, when I said that his 'state' was little bigger than the room in which he sat; or, it might be better said, no bigger than his imagination.

DENMARK. I have nothing to add to the points made on this question by MartinDK below, other than to say on this issue your view is probably unique, by this I mean the only one of its kind.

SPAIN. 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 expressed. The Blue Division was a formation of volunteers, oficially 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 an Axis assault on Gibralter-Franco refused.

CROATIA. Croatia may have been recognised 'internationally' by the Axis and its associates-as was Slovakia; but it was still a puppet state. It may have enjoyed a degree of internal support, but I have a higher opinioion of the Croat people than to believe that they all identified with the foul Ustase movement.

SWITZERLAND AND SWEDEN. With regard to these countries the point I was making seems to have escaped you altogether. I was being deliberately ironic-a form of satire-, not seriously suggesting that they should be listed as Axis collaborators; but by your reasoning they might very well be. It was not trade relations I was highlighting with relation to Switzerland but the black-out of Swiss cities, to prevent allied bombers using the country to pinpoint targets in Germany and Italy. This was indeed a form of collaboration; but one given under duress.

BOHEMIA AND MORAVIA. Again my point has escaped you. I was not seriously suggesting the inclusion of the Protectorate as a collaborator or Axis state; but once more by your estimation it could have been: indeed much more so than either Denmark or Norway. It was, incidentally, not part of Grossdeutschland (how could Slavs be Germanised?) but a separate political formation with a native government under the German Protector.

Finally, on a point of advice, you really need to clarify some of your thinking on this matter. I am not being unkind, but your rather eccentric views risk robbing the issue of all sense and meaning. White Guard 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, Imperial Japan flag

it needs to replace the noraml japan flag, correct flag viewed here:http://voiceoftaiwan.tripod.com/imperial_japan.gif

That is the naval ensign for Japan during the war. If you look at the main page of this article, you will see a picture of the signing of the Triparite Pact and you will see the correct Japanese flag. That to me should end the debate.TchussBitc 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Change Dependent on (or controlled by) the Axis

I think this section needs major revamping. For instance, Luxembourg can be found in here. I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider Luxembourg a member of the Axis. Sure Luxembourg was annexed, but annexation isn't enough to include a nation into the Axis.

It also appears that nations that where occupied by Axis members who supplied voluneteers are also considered to be members of the Axis. This is not right. For instance Belgians did fight for Hitler but, the Belgium government did go into exile and this should rightfully eliminate Belgium from this page. If people do not agree with me, then the Baltic nations such as Estonia and Lativa should be considered as members who where "Dependent on (or controlled by) the Axis".

Why is the Russo-Japanese client state in Soviet Far East included in this article. As far as I remember, this never existed and was a mere plan for Japanese intentions. This shouldn't be included in the article. We need to delete that as well.

What I propse is you eliminate the title. Change the title to "Axis Puppet States" and eliminate several of the countries in the listed article. There appears to be no logical reasoning for Belgium and Luxembourg to be included. Also, I would include Burma in this section as well. Burma National Army

I think this page is a good example of what happens when you try to cover too much in one article. It tends to become nonsens. If we put your suggestion to a vote I will support it. -- MartinDK 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what happened. The minor axis nations are in total dissaray. Also, if you view the summary it mentions that six axis members did not exist after the war. It fails to mention the Japanese puppet Menjiang (sp?). The summary is rubbish, it should probally go as well.

I also apologize in advance for making my edits. I just couldn't sit idoly by while looking at Luxembourg as a member of the Axis. For my next edits I will wait for a general conscenous (sp?)TchussBitc 20:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you made the edits. In the case of Luxembourg it was an obvious mistake to include it in the article in the first place. In such situations it should be ok to take action without waiting for others to realize the mistake as well.

I suggest an if not complete then thorough rewrite of the introduction. Unless we split the article into two it should be aimed directly at the core of the subject. As it is now it is at best highly speculative and at worst misleading. Wikipedia whould be about facts and not speculative theories and redefinition of terms like Axis Powers. MartinDK 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should move along with the "Axis Puppet State" section. The current title doesn't accurately potray what they where, and that was puppet states. Now, the Russian client states appear to be more of a civil adminstration that wasn't really organized like a national government (albeit a puppet one). I have to admit, I am not really educated on the Russian collaborators. Is there even a difference between a client state and a puppet state? Anyone else care to interject?TchussBitc 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should rename it to "Axis Puppet State". I think we need to be careful though as Finland was not a puppet state but a state with its own non-facist reasons for attacking Russia. A client state is a state that through its dependance acts in accordance with the wishes of Moscow. For many years Finland could to a large extend be considered a client state since it was unable to join Nato and was largely dependant on trade to Russia. A puppet state is a a state where the government has been directly installed by Moscow. DDR, Belarus, Ukraine were good examples of puppet states. MartinDK 16:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria, a cousin of the Finns...

The Finnish situation has been beaten into everyone's heads. But, not the Bulgarian. The Bulgarian situation is almost a mirror image to that of the Finns with an notable exception.

Bulgaria was coerced into the Axis camp by troops gathering on her border prior to the invasion of Greece. Bulgaria then joined an alliance with the Germans. Bulgaria occupied portions of Greece that it lost to Greece in an earlier war. Bulgaria never sent troops to fight the "Big Three". Bulgaria declared war on the US & UK, but not the Soviet Union. Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria in 1944. After the war, Bulgaria was allowed to keep territory acquired from Romania during the war.

From a foreign relation standpoint, Bulgaria behaved herself. She acted similiarly to the Finns. A notable difference is that she never fought any of the major allies, and was allowed to keep territory acquired during the war. Unlike Finland the Bulgarians opted to sign the Tripartiate Treaty.

My point? We can nitpick many of these Axis nations out of the Axis, but that would be revising history. I am a fan of keeping the major three in one group, the minors in another (with blurbs explaining coercion), then a puppet section. That is how I would do things. But, it appears as if wikipedia is a dictatorship of the masses and I have been overthrown. :P TchussBitc 04:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think that would be a good idea. I just think that the article needs to make a clear distinction between Axis members who clearly sympathized with the German facism and those who chose to join the Axis because it made sense for them to do so because of previous unrelated conflicts (such as the Finns). I also happen to think that much of the history of what happened in Eastern Europe and Finland has already been revised because the Soviet victory was so overwhelming.

With regard to Bulgaria vs. Finland I think it is important to keep in mind that she wasn't forced to choose sides for tactical reasons. She declared war on the Western Allies to please the Germans but rather than "liberating" Bulgaria the Soviet Union chose to declare war on Bulgaria. Why? Because a) that would allow the Soviets to install a puppet government and b) the Soviets didn't consider Bulgaria quite as well-behaved after all. Bulgaria was not in any danger of being overrun by Greece.

Had the Finns chosen to join the Allied side she would have been overrun by the Germans. She joined the Germans because from a tactical point of view it provided her with the needed support to keep the Soviet Union out of her territory. The terrotorial gains made beyond that were small if compared to what the Germans achieved and those terrtitorial gains were of no real use to the Germans at least in the long run. But I am a fan of the way to organize the article that you described above so that gets my vote. So it appears as if you haven't actually been overthrown ;) MartinDK 06:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Not the dictatorship of the masses but dictatorship of the boneheads.;-P I would be even more radical and would put all puppet states, occupied areas etc. to the separate article, and leave only broadly recognized states here. It means the big three (Germany, Japan and Italy) in separate section and the smaller ones (Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Romania and Thailand) to the other.

That way we can scrap alltogether the idea of the Axis Powers as an alliance and instead of presenting them as a one group in a war fighting another group (the Allies). It gives us more space to express the differences between the countries and their reasons and methods how to act. It also makes it possible to handle difficult cases (like Quisling government, Denmark, Yugoslavia, etc.) in the puppet/occupied article (whatever its name is in the end...) without offending anybody.

Reinterpretation and revisioning of history happens all the time, there is no doubt about that, as new archives are released and when time passes it is possible and also allowed to start to see different things than common belief has mythified. --Whiskey 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good too me. As I have stated in one of my above comments I think this article tries too cover too much as it is. Does this mean that we have reached a form of consensus? And should we move forward with the idea then? What we are planning to do is a pretty radical rewrite of the article so we need to be sure that we actually agree on this before we delete half the article and move it to another article :) And I agree that time allows you to see things in a less biased way and hence more true to what actually happened. Certainly there were countries that formed alliances in one form or the other to take advantage of the situation. And that certainly needs to be covered but the article is messy as it is now. MartinDK 10:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with what I read from the last few posts. But for some odd reason I am hesistant, and I will tell you why. I can't find a difinitive answer anywhere for "Axis Power"! Is the Tripartite Treaty applicable? Or is it just a loose association of nations tied by a "mutual" ally? Ack! I don't know where to go. As I read more into the subject I am getting confused. For instance, I just read the [Declaration by the United Nations]. Here it shows that the Allies where fighting the signatories of the Tripartite Treaty (which shows why the US never declared war on Finland). Then I must concede that by the legal definition they where never an ally of the Germans but co-belligerents. Which goes against my personal beliefs. But wiki is meant to be NPOV and yadaa yada yada...

So do modern historians generally agree that the Axis where treaty bound or where they a grouping of nations not bound by treaty? The Tripartiate Treaty was a defensive treaty, so I don't really see the logic in the specifying the Tripartiate.

But, without a doubt lets remove the client states. That includes Denmark. Denmark did not willingfully join. They where invanded and subjugated very quickly. The king was looking out for his people. I believe they did sign the Anti-Comintern, which really has no relevance at all.TchussBitc 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Being Danish I feel like I have to make a few comments here. Denmark was never of any real interest to the Germans. We were merely in the way of the German plans to invade Norway. The Germans never really understood why the Danish people were so upset about being invaded. The terms offered by the Germans after the invasion were certainly favourable compared to the brute force used against countries like Holland and Norway. For that reason the Germans didn't feel a need to directly rule Denmark. Instead the Danes struck a deal with the Germans that essentially allowed Denmark to stay a "sovereign" country. In return, of course, the Danes weren't allowed to behave in ways that were seen as a threat to the Germans. This could perhaps be labeled as a form of coorporation with the Germans. But ermany was never able to get anything of real value from Denmark because they were constantly being stalled by the government and the people in general. When Germany demanded that any goods be sent to her she recieved the worst possible quality. When German patience ran out in 1943 the Danish navy sank its ships so the Germans couldn't use them (except for a few ships that weren't sunk in time). Clearly resistance to the German invasion would have resulted in total destruction of Denmark. And from an allied point of view Denmark was worth much more if not destroyed by the Germans. That way the Danish resistance was able to, very succesfully, halt German troop and cargo transports to Norway and hence help cripple the Germans in Norway. It is also worth noting that was was never actually declared on Denmark.

With regard to the definition of Axis Powers the way I was taught it was that the Axis Powers shared the same ideology. Thats what united them and set them apart from other countries that supported them. Cetainly the Finns weren't facists. They took advantage of German success against the Soviets. Other cases are not as simple though. Romania is a good example of this. So how much coorporation would label it an Axis power? It's hard to say but I do feel that the key element is the degree of ideological simularity. And from that point of view I feel that keeping the "big three" in this article and move the more difficult cases to a seperate article would be a good idea. At least that way we could deal with them individually and try to map the huge complex political game that decided who supported which side of the war. MartinDK 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction about the fall of Independent State of Croatia (NDH)

Named allied victory is imaginary. NDH was destroyed by Yugoslav partisan (mixed nationalitys, many of them Croats also)and by smaller part by southern wing of SSSR forces which passed through northen parts of Yugoslavia. There were none, absolutley none Western Allied military formations, especialy none Italian-Greek formations, on yugoslav soil during II.WW and everybody with minimal knowledge about this period can notice this fasity. Only western Allied military personel in country were conntact officers that cooperated with partisans. Allso, air protection was provided to island Vis, where Tito and partisan HQ from 1944. was located, and weapon drops were made. (Note that most of partisan weapons were of italian origin, confiscated from italian troops when Italy capitulated 1943. The nearest point Western Allies ever came close to Yugoslavia is Trieste (later place of post WW.-II crisis between Italy and Yugoslavia which almost provoked anther war) in Italy and region of Koruska in Austria where they have met yugslav partisan forces who were pursuing retreating nazi collaborators from several countrys (including former NDH soldiers as well)and refugees. It is allso worth saying that these collaborators mostly surrended to british forces but were handed over to partisans who than mass executed them (figures vary between 30,000 to 250,000 killed). Only thing correct in this article is that NDH-regime is responsable for mass Serb, Gypsy and also Croat antifasists killings, and that in Croatia catholic religion is dominant religion. Everything else is absolutley false and product of writers imagination. I hope that this will be noticed and article corrected.

I think the article needs to clarify that what it calls Yugoslavia was in fact a Bulgarian puppet state and hence part of the Axis. Also it needs to clarify, partly due to accuracy and partly due to respect for the partisans, that Yugoslavia and NHD was defeated by the partisans. However, I also think that it needs further investigation to what extend the partisans relied on material and intelligence from the allies. You seem to be well-informed on this matter so why not be bold and rewrite it yourself? MartinDK 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Major Change

Grungoria says -- see above and below --

Major Axis Powers Germany Italy Japan

Minor Axis Powers Hungary Romania Bulgaria Yugoslavia Croatia

Axis Co-Belligerents Thailand Finland

Axis Collaborators Vichy France Spain Denmark

German Puppet States Norway (Quisling) Greece (Rallis) Serbia (Nedic)

Italian Puppet State Albania (personal union)

Japanese Puppet States Manchuria (Manchuko) Mongolia (Mengiang) China (Nanking regime) Phillipines (Second Republic) Burma India (Free India)

Thank you for your consideration. I am Grungoria.

_____________________________________________________________________________

It seems as if most people are in agreement that this page needs major work. Here is what I think should happen.

Major Powers

• Germany
• Italy
• Japan

Minor Powers

• Hungary
• Romania
• Bulgaria

Axis Puppets

• Slovakia
• Croatia
• Manchuko
• Mengiang

Co-Belligerents

• Finland (meets definition of, the facts are there)
• Thailand

Now, on to the hard part. What to do with the Provisional Government of Free India? If this is included anywhere on the page, then the Burmese National Army should as well. Yugoslavia meets the definition of an Axis Power, but was quickly overthrown. Does that need to be added?

Vichy France. Vichy France was the whipping boy of the Axis. Land grabs and what not. I don't know whether to classify Vichy as a puppet since they did have a good deal of control with their own foreign affairs, unlike other puppets. What does everyone else think? TchussBitc 04:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Burmese National Army was a puppet government installed by Japan so by definition it belongs under Axis Puppets. The Provisional Government of Free India is harder. Its main purpose was to get rid of the English and to do that it took advantage of the situation. Very much like Finland did with Germany to take advantage of the situation in the was against The Soviet Union. So I think that one belongs under Co-Belligerents though I am still a bit unsure if I have understood the situation in India correct. Was it de facto installed by Japan or did it rise to power on its own? If Japan was de facto responsible for installing it it belongs under puppets and not Co-Belligerents. The same applies to the governemnt of Yugoslavia. Vichy France was clearly an ally of the Axis even if it didn't have general support in the population. Besides all that I agree with your proposal and as soon as I am sure we are in agreement I will change the article accordingly. What remains after that is a general rewrite of some portions of the article such as the introduction which I think is a bit weak. MartinDK 12:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This page continues to be a mess. People keep adding more or less relevant information without consulting this discussion. The dispute tag was also removed for whatever reason. Either we decide to reorganize and tidy it up or it will become increasingly messy and inaccurate. The Hungary part even has sources listed in the middle of the article now! MartinDK 18:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a hard one to work on. This article has to do with international disputes, from what I noticed they tend go haywire. This one is especially hard since people will always try to add something degrading to one side, while glorifying another. What really hurts this article the most is the lack of a clear definition of what an Axis power member was. Tripartite Pact coined the term, but not all nations that people commonly associate with the Axis signed it. From the books that I read, it appears as if the Tripartite is the definition of the term. That's how I'd like to see the article move.

Now does anyone have any information on the Japanese puppets? There is semi-descent information on Manchucko, but the Nanjing Puppet State and Mengjiang has very little information. I don't have access to descent English language libraries at the time since I am living in Germany right now. TchussBitc 23:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I look at it this way... to actually have any influence and hence be labeled an axis power a country needed to a) have some kind of political influence on current events and b) have a notable military force. Clearly Germany, Japan and to a certain extend Italy belongs under this definition. Furthermore I do believe that to be a member of the Axis you had to share at least to a certain degree the same ideology. This is why I do not believe Finland was an Axis member. She was taking advantage of the current events more than anything else. The Provisional Government of Free India wanted to get rid of the British and also took advantage of the situation.

I agree that this article will always cause some people to be offended. But the facts are out there and as long as we stick to them and do not pass judgement per se on anyone I do believe that this article can be greatly improved. It might never be perfect but at least we could organize it better, improve the introduction and put references at the bottom of the article! MartinDK 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest the article should be confined to explaining the meaning of the term Axis Powers plus a list of the countries that belonged to it. Historical specifics about individual countries should be under the names of the relevant countries, under respective subheadings such as 'politics', 'military history', etc. Harry163 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is an appalling mess. I've removed some of the nonsense, but much remains. White Guard 01:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

With reference to a point made above Vichy was not a puppet state and should not be considered as part of the Axis; nor, for that matter, should Finland and-for goodness sake-Thailand. White Guard 01:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right. This article is trying to do too much. If anything, a link should be provided on the article for WW2 co-belligerents (if it exists)TchussBitc 14:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis?

Could I please have a reference for the contemporary use of this term? I have only ever heard of the Rome-Berlin Axis, Mussolini's own term. The extension to Japan is, I suspect, a nelogism, intended to serve for the Triple Alliance. I realise that for the sake of convenience that Germany and her various allies and associates will continue to be referred to as the 'Axis Powers.' This does not, however, excuse the presentation of a preception as a historical fact. White Guard 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

White Guard that is exactly why we have been discussing this for solong now. No one has any clear definition of that actually constituted the Axis which is why it is do difficult to organize the article in a clear and correct way. This is no easy task. The political game behind the war is so complex because everyone had their own agenda and unsettled disputes which were dragged into the war. Just think of Finland and Bulgaria. Clearly those two took advantage of the situation to deal with issues that were (somewhat) unrelated to the rest of the war. There was some level of attempted co-operation between Germany and Japan but if you have any information about this please share it with us! :) MartinDK 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I am a late comer to this debate, but I can see from the above how much intellectual energy it has generated, hardly surprising when you consider the suggestion-amongst others-that Norway and Denmark be considered as Axis powers! It may be that this has deflected attention from the quality of the article itself, which has been subject to a significant degree of corruption. Amongst other things, some bewildering nonsense was inserted into the section on Croatia. However, what I object to specifically-or have raised doubts over-is the following statement;

"The three major Axis Powers, Nazi Germany, Empire of Japan and Facist Italy, refer to themselves as the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis..."

My point is that I have never heard of any contemporary use of this triple term by the powers in question, and I thus believe the statement to be an invention in the guise of a historical fact; as such it must be considered as a form of-unintentional-corruption; unless, that is, some reference can be provided. I would have edited this out but will hold my hand for the time being. White Guard 23:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Tripartite Pact does not use the word Axis. It does however recognize the Axis (Germany/Italy). I think the reason that the Axis is commonly thought of as Germany/Italy/Japan is that it makes more sense for most people to think of it as such. The Tripartite Pact could be seen as an attempt to create an Axis simular to that of Italy/Germany but one that covers a much larger area. The idea is that other countries will join under the leadership of the "Axis Powers" Japan, Germany and Italy.

However you do indeed make a valid point. And since we should try to stick to the facts and avoid misconceptions, no matter how common they may be, I do believe that we should alter the proposed division of the nations in the article so that it becomes clear that Germany and Italy were the original Axis. Japan should then follow below those to as a later affiliate through The Tripartite Pact. However it shouldn't be presented in a way that might give the impression that Japan was not as involved as the original Axis. Japan was arguably more successful than Germany and certainly Italy. And from that perspective it might actually make more sense for the common reader of the article to think of Germany and Japan as the backbone of the Axis.

But as I said above we should be reporting the actual facts and not was is commonly understood to be the facts. So I definately think that your point of view needs to be incorporated into the article. The big question is when we should actually change the article. It is going to be a major revision and given the fact that the article is already being edited on a regular basis we need to be sure that we have reached a consensus that we can refer to if others should decide to change it back. MartinDK 10:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the unnecessary-and innacurate-reference to the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis. White Guard 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think it needs further clarification. The way it is organized now it seems as if The Tripartite Act was an attempt to include the puppets in the Axis. This is not true. The Tripartite Act was a formal agreement between the Germany/Italy Axis and Japan. The reason it was signed by other nations was that those nations were puppets. We need to clarify that point not only in the text itself but also in the way the article is organized. MartinDK 11:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the minors listed as members of the Tripartite where never members. Slovakia was not a signatory, but is under the heading for nations that where.TchussBitc 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved Slovakia and Independent State of Croatia to German puppets. MartinDK 03:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt The Italian Social Republic be considered a puppet? It existed solely because Germany occupied Northern italy and I find it hard to see how it in any way resembled a "power". MartinDK 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. White Guard 04:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Grossdeutschland?

The description of the political boundries given here of Greater Germany is wrong. By 1943 the actual territory of the Reich, directly subordinate, that is, to the Reich government, included, besides the German territory within the boundries of 1937, Austria, the Sudetenland, Memelland, Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, Danzig, parts of central and eastern Poland, Slovenia, parts of northern Italy, and the Belgian territory of Eupen-Malmedy. It did not include the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, the General-Government of Poland, Belarus or the Baltic States, all separately and distinctly administered. White Guard 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Denmark-clarification please.

I need some clarification about some points made in relation to Denmark. SS volunteers were recruited by the Nazis in all lands under occupation, with or without the co-operation of the local authorities. The wording here suggests that the Danish government actively recruited on behalf of the SS. Can this be true? I suspect not. But more important why is Denmark included in a section about membership of the Axis? Denmark, Spain, France, Finland and Thailand should all be removed. None of these countries were Axis powers. White Guard 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed them once before... You see some people who like to contribute to this article don't bother to look at the discussion first. Our government did not recruit people to the SS. Those who joined the SS were a) a small and completely insignificant number and b) doing so at their own free will and against the wishes of the Danish government and people. MartinDK 11:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the secton refering to Denmark and others as it contained no additional info and was for the most part ignorant to say the least. MartinDK 11:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

German Puppet States

Grungoria says -- STOP REMOVING GERMAN PUPPET STATES FROM THE LIST OF GERMAN PUPPET STATES. The Vidkun Quisling regime of Norway was a German puppet state; in fact, because of the Vidkun Quisling regime, his name "quisling" has entered the English language as a word meaning "puppet." Likewise, the Ioannis Rallis regime in Greece, with its Security Battalions, and the Milan Nedić regime in Serbia, with its Serbian Volunteer Corps were German puppet states.

VICHY FRANCE SHOULD BE LISTED AS AN AXIS COLLABORATOR, NOT A GERMAN PUPPET STATE. Vichy France was not created by Germany, as were the puppet regimes of Quisling, Rallis and Nedic. Vichy France, officially called the French State, was the lawful successor to the Third Republic and recognized as such by the international community, including the United States. There is no question that Vichy France collaborated with the Axis, breaking diplomatic relations with Great Britain, sigining the Anti-Comintern Pact with Hiter and Mussolini, and resisting the Allied landings in North Africa (inflicting over 1,000 American casulaties!).

SPAIN SHOULD BE LISTED AS AN AXIS COLLABORATOR, NOT A GERMAN PUPPET. Although Franco won the Spanish Civil War with the military support of Hitler and Mussolini, his regime was not created by Germany or Italy. However, Spain was clearly an Axis collaborator. Franco repeatedly and publicly declared Spain a "nonbelligerent member" of the Axis. Franco was a signer of the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1941 and dispatched the "Blue Division" of over 20,000 Spanish volunteers to fight the Soviet Union on Germany's Eastern Front. Spain was denied membership in the United Nations because of its collaboration with the Axis.

DENMARK SHOULD BE LISTED AS AN AXIS COLLABORATOR, NOT A GERMAN PUPPET STATE. King Christian willingly accepted German military occupation, and his "Protectorate Government" clearly collaborated with the Axis, signing the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1941 and breaking diplomatic relations with the Allied Powers of Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States. Unlike Norway, whose lawful government fled to England and continued to operate in exile(requiring the Germans to create a puppet regime under Quisling), the lawful government of Denmark remained in Denmark and collaborated with the Germans.

CROATIA SHOULD BE LISTED AS A MINOR AXIS POWER, NOT A GERMAN PUPPET STATE. Although formed from Yugosolovia after it had been occupied by Germany, Croatia achieved a degree of international recognition not obtained by the puppet regimes of Quisling, Rallis and Nedic in Norway, Greece and Serbia. Croatia was a signer of both the Tripartite Pact and the Anti-Comintern Pact.

NO COUNTRY TODAY IS PROUD OF ITS MEMBERSHIP IN OR COLLABORATION WITH THE AXIS, BUT THAT IS NO EXCUSE FOR VANDALIZING THIS ARTICLE BY DELETING PUPPET AND COLLABORATOR STATES.

Thank you for your consideration. I am Grungoria.

______________________________________________________________________________

I have removed the reference (headings only) to the Quisling 'government' in Norway and the 'National Salvation government' in Serbia as German puppet states. Both of these authorities had virtually no authority; Norway remained under the supreme control of Reichskommisar Josef Terboven and Serbia under German military rule. If we start to include such shadowy structures we might as well incorporate Anton Mussert and the Dutch National Socialists, the civilian authorities in the British Channel Islands, and the various national authorities established in conquered Russian territory; and there was even a Greek government in Athens.

I have to say also that I have serious objections to the inclusion of Vichy France as a German puppet state. The Germans at no point appointed the governments of France; and Marshal Petain was recognised as French head of state by the United States-and other-as late as the winter of 1942, a year after she entered the war. I want to remove this inclusion of Vichy, but will defer the matter until others have had a chance to consider my objection.

We really have to get down to a core definition of the Axis, or risk abandoning this page to all sorts of eccentrics. White Guard 23:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Vichy France was not a puppet. It was not installed by Germany. Instead it rose to power by itself and should be classified as an ally of the Axis. I have pointed this out earlier but didn't make the relevant edit since I knew that such an edit would require further discussion. I completely agree with your edits... either we delete such governments or the article will become messy again. MartinDK 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that, though I am not sure that even 'ally' is the correct term as the two countries still remained officially 'at war'; the cessation of hostilities in 1940 was only an armistice. In some respects France was a case sui generis, both similar and different to the examples of Spain and Denmark. French volunteers served with the German armed forces, though these were not raised by the French government as such. White Guard 08:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps collaborator would be a better word. Certainly Vichy acted on its own but in accordance with German wishes. I also think it is safe to say that the Vichy government did so not because it felt pressured to do so as such but because it wanted to. This is where it differs from Denmark. The Danish government was forced to collaborate but did so in a way that made the collaboration virtually worthless for the Germans.

I am not sure if we could classify Vichy as a minor power but it certainly did what it could to help the Germans and did so beyond what would be expected from a government that reluctantly co-operated with the Germans. MartinDK 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to say there is a quite astonishing level of ignorance being shown in this debate by the user who goes by the name of Grungoria. While I agree with some of his points, particularly in relation to Vichy France, which was an Axis collaborator rather than a puppet state, most of the rest is meretricious nonsense. I am not Danish, but I personally find the points made about Denmark not just wrong-headed but profoundly offensive. Denmark was not in a position to defend itself against the German takeover in 1940; and to allege that King Christian 'willingly' accepted occupation is quite scandalous. If there is an example of how a government-and a king-should behave under foreign occupation, then that is surely provided by the Danes. As far as 'collaboration' is concerned they gave only what they had to give in meaningless diplomatic gestures, and they made no practical contribution to the Axis war effort. When it came to more fundamental issues, like Nazi policy towards the Jews, their lack of co-operation stands second to none in the whole of Europe. I will continue to resist any attempt to define Denmark as a puppet or a collaborator state or a member of the Axis in any form whatsoever; and if that is to be considered as vandalism, then so be it.

Let's consider some of the other rubbish. Quisling tried to set himself up as prime minister of Norway in 1940, and was of so little use to the Germans he lasted for exactly five days. He reappeared three years later on the whim of Josef Terboven, largely to give a local gloss to German actions against the resistence and the Jews. His authority was virtually non-existent, and his 'state' was little bigger than the room in which he and his collaborators sat. To define Norway as a 'puppet state' because of his treasonable actions is an offense to the people of Norway and the continuing and active resistence they offered to the Nazis. This is also true with regard to Serbia and Greece. While we are on this subject, why not include the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia as a collaborator or puppet state? It continued to have its own government, and the contribution of the Skoda works to the German military machine was infinitely more important than anything provided by Norway or Denmark. And what about Mussert in Holland, or the authorities in the British Channel Islands etc. etc. etc.

Pavelic's Croatia was by any reasonable person's definition a puppet state: it would not have existed but for the Axis invasion and continuing German and Italian support. Spain should not be listed as a collaborator; no more should Portugal, whatever the political sympathies of these countries. You might as well include Switzerland in this category, because it obeyed German black-out regulations, or even (to take this point to the level of total absurdity) Sweden, because volunteers from here served with the SS on the Eastern Front. Oh, yes, on a final point, I will not be intimidated by sentences in capital letters, little more than a form of shouting. White Guard 03:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you White Guard! As you may have noticed I am Danish. what is being said about Denmark above is absolutely wrong. There was no co-operation of any value. The Danish army was not put at the Germans disposal. In fact when the Germans ran out of patience with the Danish government in 1943 the Danish navy, fearing the Germans would take control of its fleet, decided to sink its own ships. As far as co-operating with the Germans politically ther Danish collective effort to save the jews from Nazi KZ-camps stands out in history as one of the most significant displays of defiance against the Germans. Furthermore, there was a Danish government in London who were responsible for the transmission of illegal radio broadcasts every night to the Danish people through the BBC. This was how the message of freedom was delivered to the Danish people on May 4. 1945 after the Germans had surrendered and if you listen to that broadcast or transcripts of it you will know that it included a special message from the government in exile. In addition to that, you fail to notice that the much beloved king did not leave hos country for obvious reasons. He stayed here under the protection of not the Germans but the Danish people as a whole.

The way the German invasion and occupation was handled by the danish government and people stands out as a great example of what to do in a situation where a country is faced with an overwhelming enemy. By not attempting to directly resist the occupation Denmark was able to a) ensure that any help from Denmark to the Nazis was of no real value (prolonging decisions, sending bad goods when required to do so by the Germans) and b) establish a strong and independent resistance movement that succesfully halted troop supplies from Denmark and Norway during the final stages of the war in Europe.

I will continue to remove any edits that dispute these facts, vandalism or not.

With regard to Vichy France I already agree with you and appreciate that you have put it in its own category the way it should.

I agree with White Guard about the rest of your points made and see no reason to repeat what he has already said. Norway was not a puppet state but was at least de facto under direct control of the German army. Denmark was not under control of the German army but instead under the control of the German Foreign Office. Big difference if you know what you are talking about.

I hope you will contribute to this article with constructive edits and refrain from foul language/capital letters and unconstructive edits. If not I will consider this to be an edit war and appropriate steps will be taken against you. MartinDK 11:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Serbia... to be considered a puppet a government must posses a reasonable amount of actual control over its territory to be considered in power of that territory. The Serb resistance was so fierce that I strongly disagree with the government of Milan Nedić being classified as a puppet. A government is not a puppet government simply because it is appointed by a foreign power. It needs a significant amount of actual power to be considered a puppet government. This applies to your argument about Norway as well. If not we could make a list 10 times the size of this of so called "puppets" and collaborators.

Why do you think we have this discussion? We discuss these things because we need a narrow enough definition of Axis Power and Puppet to give it any real meaning. Otherwise this article would just be another "anything-goes" article on Wikipedia. MartinDK 11:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem mostly arises out of differing definitions of what constitutes a "puppet" and a "collaborator"...people wanting to add the Serbian, Greek, Norwegian regimes seem to believe a "puppet" means a government with practically no authority at all, while a collaborator is everything else. Most everybody else seems to be denying the Serbian, er, puppet regime any status at all. I'm not sure how to deal with this. john k 22:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has yet voice objection to this, Spain cannot possibly be called a puppet state or a collaborator either. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see 'Debate with White Guard' at the top of this page and my response under Spain. White Guard 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was only looking at this section. Unfortunately sometimes reasoning doesn't stop the debate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Core Defintion of Axis

The Declaration of the United Nations put the Allies at war with the signatories of Tripartite Pact. The Tripartite Pact signatories are the Axis Powers. I believe this should be what this article is based off of. We may be trying to accomplish too much by having a Collabarator States section, and possibly the puppets.TchussBitc 21:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree there should be a core definition, and mine would be quite simple: Germany, Italy and Japan, with the subsequent addition of Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and the puppet states of Slovakia and Croatia. Finland night be included as a co-belligerant. I have real worries about the inclusion of the various Japanese puppet states-some of which were very shadowy indeed; and I do not believe that I have ever come across any scholarly debate on this issue which includes Thailand as part of the Axis. White Guard 23:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Did Slovakia and Croatia actually sign the Tripartite? I am not finding anything documenting this. In the book about Slovakia I put under the references section I do not recollect reading this, but the National Holocaust Musuem site lists them as a signer.

You make good points about the Japanese puppets, they really were not recogonized as legitimate government.TchussBitc 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The basic idea of the Axis was that other countries would join or be absorbed politically by the Axis Powers. Therefor it makes no sense to label other countries as Axis Powers. However, the Axis would have made no sense if other nations around it had not in fact been absorbed or brought under control as puppets. This is the core issue we should deal with. Define the Axis members as Germany, Italy and Japan. Make sure for the purpose of accuracy that we explain how the Axis originally was designed to include Germany and Italy. And then proceed to explain what real effect the Axis had, that is describe what countries were in fact brought under political control.

It makes no sense in that regard to list countries that were brought under control purely by using military power. This includes Norway and Denmark. There are other articles dealing with this aspect (the military aspect) of the war. This article is about the political side of the war and as I have noted before this is not as simple as it looks.

A regime is not a puppet simply because it was installed by a foreign power. if that was the case any nation could appoint any arbitrary government in another country and call it a puppet. However, some goverments are not recognized by other nations even though it actually maintains a fair amount of control over its terrritory. Keep in mind that recognizing a government is a political act and there may be any number of motivations why one may or may not want to do so. The Taliban was not recognized by the vast majority of the world as the government of Afghanistan but it did have a substantial amount of control over its territory.

Regarding the Japanese puppets I suggest we only keep the ones that were puppets by the most narrow definition of a puppet, which would be the ones that meet the criteria I described above. MartinDK 16:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Did Slovakia have diplomatic relations with non-Axis states? Did Croatia? john k 10:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Slovakia was diplomatically recogonized by several nations, to include the UK. I also found out that Slovkia did sign the Tripartite on November 22nd 1940 (it was the same day as Romania.

In regards to earlier statements. I read some information that supports information put forth earlier in this thread. The Axis came forth from the Pact of Steel (the whole new Axis in Europe from Mussolini...), but after the fall of France and the signing of the Tripartite, Japan was included. I'd say we go with that idea, and split the satelites and puppets. Axis Satelites would open the door for those with agendas to put say "Belgium" down and every other nation. (Which would be the downfall of that option)

Now, in regards to Finland. People will try to include them in the Axis (I would have too, until after an earlier debate). This will undoubtedly happen. You'd have to include a co-belligerent section because we all know exactly what would happen.TchussBitc 22:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a general consensus that Finland needs to be dealt with in a co-belligerent section. Not only because we all know that anything else would start an old debate all over again but because it would be wrong not to single Finland out as having played a unique role in the European war.

Regarding satelite states I think that would definately be a way to move forward but we need to be careful because such a section would also mean that a lot of the rubbish and irrelevant (mis-)information that we have removed would be included once again. On the other hand it would allow us to clearly state who were puppets and who in fact weren't. MartinDK 15:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with listing German puppet regimes in various occupied countries, so long as we are clear about the precise state of play. Where else, exactly, are regimes like the Nedic regime going to be discussed? john k 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In the history of wartime Yugoslavia. Otherwise this whole debate-and the article itself-risks tumbling into the 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' absurdity, if it has not already done so. Officially Serbia was under the direct administration of the German army, not Nedic. You will find Nedic style collaborators throughout occupied Europe; it makes no sense to include them in an article on Axis Powers. If you do then you really have to make room for Quisling, Mussert and all the other absurdities. White Guard 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Battles long ago

Will no-one tell me what she sings

Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow,

For old, unhappy, far off things,

And battles long ago.

I am becoming ever more aware that a proxy war is creeping into these pages, largely, I suspect, coming from the former Yugoslavia, about the character and status of the war-time 'states' of Serbia and Croatia. Have a look at the rather suspect page on Nedić's Serbia and some of the observations above about Croatia. These issues clearly carry a lot of residual bitterness, pushed forward by some very partisan views. White Guard 05:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)