Talk:Axis powers/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Official names

Latest comment: 3 years ago32 comments7 people in discussion

I do not think we should describe countries by their official names in the infobox as this tends to confuse what is being referred to. This has already been discussed above, with a consensus against using such official names, but I thought it worth saying it explicitly in a separate section. If we are to do it, then it should be on an all-or-nothing basis, and not mixing official names for some countries with unofficial common names for others. E.g., "Tsardom of Bulgaria" is confusing and long compared to simply "Bulgaria", but if we are going to use it then all the other Axis powers should also be described by their official names for consistency. FOARP (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it is more confusing not to use the official names used everywhere else on Wikipedia especially those states’ own Wiki articles. The name tells what time, geography and what country existed in history we are referring to instead of the modern day country that is there. I agree with going to consensus just disagree that official names are confusing is all. OyMosby (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that in the case of Croatia, there were two more entities with the name Croatia during the Second World War. There was still legally the Banovina of Croatia as an autonomous part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and later from 1943 the Federal State of Croatia proclaimed by the Partisans. So in this case the full name or the abbreviation NDH is a better option to avoid confusion, and due to the fact that unlike the Banovina and the Federal State of Croatia, the NDH was not a recognized or legal entity:

"Yugoslavia still legally existed and held sovereign rights over its territory; these rights were simply suspended because of belligerent occupation. Even if the resistance at home was disregarded, the Yugoslav state, as a member of the anti-Axis coalition and in the form of the government-in-exile, was legally still fully operative. Throughout the war, it contested all the claims to legal existence and sovereignty of the Croatian puppet state and regarded it as an agent of the aggressor powers." (Jozo Tomasevich: "War and Revolution in Yugoslavia", p. 272)

"The NDH’s ‘independence’ was at all times a sham: it was never recognised by any non-Axis country except Franco’s Spain and at the Nuremberg Trials it was declared to be merely an expression of the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia. In practice, it was treated like a colony by the Germans and Italians, its economic resources mercilessly exploited." (Marko Attila Hoare: "The Bosnian Muslims in the Second World War", p. 19)

"The NDH, unlike Vichy France, was neither legal nor legitimate." (Branka Magaš: "Croatia Through History: The Making of a European State", p. 555) Tezwoo (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

None of this matters compared to what name the reliable sources use when listing Axis powers (which is what we are doing in the infobox). As can be seen above, they overwhelmingly just say "Croatia" in that context. I am not arguing that the official name should not be used in the article text. Additionally we have a note telling the reader that Croatia and Slovakia were puppet states so it's not like the reader is going to be any misimpression as to the nature of the state. However, ultimately this is a very, very minor point, and the obsession about what goes in the infobox is harmful to the article-quality as it prevents this ever being the subject of a GA due to edit-warring. FOARP (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a WP:COMMONNAME policy for article titles. I don't see a separate common name policy for different parts of articles such as infoboxes. The three sources I listed use the full name or the abbrevation "NDH" instead of "Croatia", and those are the top sources for WW2 in Yugoslavia.

There wouldn't be that many issues with the infobox if the article titles are used, and there is enough space in the infobox for them. The Tripartite Pact article looks perfectly fine with the longer names in the infobox, and it avoids confusion with modern-day countries. Tezwoo (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

And 10 of the 13 sources discussed above simply say "Croatia" when listing Axis powers. However, this is a very minor issue and using official names for all is an acceptable compromise (if a little strange). FOARP (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Where a country might have had many names, or whee a modern country has the same name it would be a good idea to use the official name to avoid any confusion.,Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I think we only need to do it where there is the possibility of confusion with another state.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, done all official names as on Tripartite Pact per Tezwoo's suggestion, what do you think? I honestly don't believe this really does reduce confusion as I honestly don't believe that anyone who might have been confused by Croatia being called "Croatia" is going to have that confusion dispelled just by changing the name to "Independent State of Croatia". No-one who knows enough about WW2 history to know that another "Croatia" existed is going to make that mistake. There is no real confusion caused by using common names.

I definitely do not favour using official names for some countries and not for others as this clearly reflects a POV as it does not treat countries equally (e.g., if you say "Slovak Republic" and "Bulgaria", then this looks like we are saying that Axis Bulgaria was "real" Bulgaria but Axis Slovakia was not "real" Slovakia). FOARP (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That appears to be the case with NDH based on the sources on the court findings the other editor posted. Is it not problematic to equalize a puppet state as powerful or recognized as say Bulgaria? OyMosby (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

OUr articles must be written from the perspective of the layman who does not know about the topic.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The supposed confusion (someone will think that NDH was the Banovina of Croatia) is only going to happen for someone with highly detailed knowledge of the period. Alternatively, if the confusion is supposed to be between the state of the period and the modern state then we should do it for all as none of these states as presently constituted are within exactly the same borders and under exactly the same political system that they were then. Even Finland and Thailand have undergone territorial changes. I'm happiest just using common names as this is what RS lists of countries tend to do when listing the Axis Power, and all-official names as an alternative as at least it is NPOV between countries. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that only people who do not know a period will know that X refers to X and not XY? Finland (for example) Was Finland in 1938 and is still Finland, it was not occupied or even conquered. ON the other hand, Vichy France (say) is not and was not France as such, so calling it France will confuse anyone who dos know the difference between France and Vichy France )which is why it has a different name). Someone who knows the history will not make the connection, they know.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Vichy France is not in our infobox list, so I don't know why people keep raising it (was it on when this was last discussed?).

Finland no longer has the same territory that it had in 1939 or even in 1941 and is not "the same Finland" that it was at that time (it has lost Petsamo, lost Porkkala in 1944 and regained it in 1956), and obviously has undergone political changes since then as well. If other countries require disambiguation due to territorial changes, then why not them?

Ultimately I don't believe anyone is really mistaking NDH for modern-day Croatia, still less for various entities that existed at the time. If this confusion is really likely then why do sources like Britannica, Bowman, DiNardo, Cooke, Tucker & Roberts, and the Library of Congress Companion simply call the country "Croatia" when listing Axis Powers?

But if they are then the same mistake needs to be rectified for other states: Germany now is not Nazi Germany (still less the National Committee for a Free Germany), Italy now is not Fascist Italy (still less the Italian Social Republic) etc. so it is not at all clear why we should treat Croatia as a special case. Treating Croatia as a special case, when much the same thing can be said for all the other countries is clearly not NPOV.

I think having official names for all is at least an acceptable compromise position. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems fine. Unnecessary as this is not the same problem for each state listed, but I am fine with using the full names for all. There is space after all. Cheers FOARP. OyMosby (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

See below as to what I am talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

See which below? I thought you were discussing Finland?OyMosby (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Errr, no I just used it as an example of a nation that is the same nation as before WW2 rather than (say) a nation that only existed during WW2, but shares a similar name to another country " a modern country has the same name it would be a good idea to use the official name to avoid any confusion".Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: oh you mean mine. Srnec was right under you and was confused as they preferred the short names like todays modern states. OyMosby (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Short names. I see nothing to be gained from long names. I find it odd that "Independent State of Croatia" is thought to be less confusing than "Croatia" by users keen to deny both its independence and its legal statehood. Srnec (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You mean like when one accepts the facts no matter if “convenient or not”? That the state wasn’t truly independent or internationally recognized a legitimate state despite it’s self-convinced name? Even Germans called it “Occupation Zones”. No one denied their autonomy and their title. It isn’t considered an official iteration of Croatia. Doesn’t mean it isn’t a shameful stain on Croatian history. So don’t worry nk kne is getting away with anything. Besides assuming bad faith and stating incorrect information, it wasn’t truly independent not considering a legitimate or legal state. Another user posted sources explaining. You are denying what the Nurnberg trials state. Deny implies we are ignoring facts. We aren’t. I assume you mean all those wanting the original name. Odd to focus on something irrelevant to whether the original name or “short” name is used. Of which I don’t see the explanation why short would be better. Short hand has been pushed by people denying it was an stalled puppet state by Italy and Germany. Funny that. :) @Peacemaker67: had corrected you before on this matter and was for the full name. Is he in denial as well? I don’t understand how this is conducive to the discussion, Srnec. I don’t understand the drive to shorten it to “Croatia” in the first place. OyMosby (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I made no assertion regarding its independence or legality. I merely pointed out that "Independent State of Croatia" might not decrease the confusion since it was neither independent nor a recognized state by the Allies. I am opposed to all the long forms. It has nothing to do with Croatia in particular except insofar as it is only Croatia that generates any opposition. Nobody apparently gives a shit about people confusing the Slovakias. Srnec (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s the official name and being it was not recognized by Allied states and wasn’t truly independent, as you now agree, it would be confusing it with Croatia the country itself as a successor. I would have thought you would agree on the original name. I do “Give a shit” about Slovakia as I argued their full name and edited back in the actual title. As it was a puppet state as well. I also changed Serbia in the article to the German designation used when occupying the territory formerly Kingdom of Yugoslavia. There is a different with these territories, hence my mentality about it. Article titles use NDH when referring to the fascist Croatian Ustashe run state. OyMosby (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The short name causes confusion in this case. The Tsardom of Bulgaria is the same state as the People's Republic of Bulgaria which succeeded it. The NDH didn't cover the same territory as modern Croatia and it didn't exist before WWII. There is no continuity between Croatia and the NDH. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no formed view about the other countries, but the NDH should be identified as the "Independent State of Croatia", and not as "Croatia". It is common for Balkan POV warriors on en WP to try to equate modern Croatia with the NDH, and we should not be encouraging that. It is also more precise and with the potential confusion between the various Croatia's OyMosby has alluded to, this level of precision is entirely justified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The opposite tendency is also apparent - the idea that NDH was not a "real" Croatia when patently it had the same kind of army, a government, a leadership, a leading party, diplomatic relations etc. etc. that other puppet states had. Surely our guide on this should be what reliable sources do in the same circumstances, which is overwhelming just to say "Croatia" when listing the Axis powers? The actually likelihood of any confusion is basically zero since anyone who knows enough about Croatian history to know that a partisan Croatia existed or that the Banovina of Croatia existed already knows that a puppet state of Croatia existed - and if they didn't why would having something labelled "Independent State of Croatia" clarify anything? Put it this way: if we write "Independent State of Croatia" do we not still need the note saying it was a puppet state? No, right? FOARP (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Sorry, but the opposite isn’t the case. @Peacemaker67: pretty much summed up a trend that results in some havjng concerns that it will only further embolden Balkan related pov pushing. Not sure how familiar you are with that circle and the ridiculous pov pushing that goes on in it on here. So... Why not both? Use the actual name and denote the details of what it was? Today’s Croatia is not an evolution of the puppet state starting point. That is clearly the point here. This is an example of putting NDH and Slovak Republic (puppets states are a special case as they are clearly different to other states that volunteered to join the Axis. on equal standings as establish countries as Bulgaria or Romania. Which Croatia army, gov etc are you referring to? NDH was NOT the only one at the time. You really believe most will automatically know the entire Croatian WWII history before coming across this article? I mean really I’m not going further with this hear. It’s very unlikely most know where Croatia even is in Europe let alone Croatian Partisans and Tito. Mist people read the intro and infobox and lazily move on, unfortunately. I wish most readers would read through at least half the article but we know many just skim random parts and that’s it. It’s why I had concerns with the infobox as right or wrong, eyes tend to got there for a quick reference or misrepresented for biased goals. So these matters get deeper and mor complicated. Trust me, I’ve dealt with these people for years, sadly .... OyMosby (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The “doesn’t cover the same territory” argument goes for all states including Bulgaria (which gained Southern Dobruja during the war, and gave up claims on Greek and Yugoslav territory at the end). Again, if this level of precision is required, then why don’t most reliable sources deploy it when listing the Axis powers? Still, using official names for all is an acceptable compromise. FOARP (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

PS - just to be clear on this, every single Axis country had territorial changes compared to the modern-day state of the same name:

Germany: East Prussia, Silesia etc.
Italy: the Slovene littoral, various Adriatic islands etc.
Japan: Sakhalin, the Kuriles etc.
Hungary: Transylvania, the Bratislava bridgehead etc.
Romania: Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Dobruja etc.
Bulgaria: Dobruja, territories in Macedonia.
Slovakia: Stakčín and Sobrance etc.
Croatia: territories in Bosnia etc.
Finland: Petsamo etc.
Thailand: territories in Cambodia.

That some claim continuity back to the Axis state and some don't is hardly decisive of anything. Notably, the German courts have maintained that, whilst the Federal Republic accepted legal liability for its acts, the Hitler state was entirely a criminal enterprise, and Axis Slovakia was expunged. Half of the above states were puppet states for at least part of the war (Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Thailand) so again this is not decisive of anything. Croatia quite simply is not a special case and should not be treated as such. FOARP (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, sorry but it is. Puppet States are a special case. Slovak Republic and NDH can’t be put on the same hierarchical level pedestal as established countries as Bulgaria or Romania. As explained by Peacemaker. Let alone NDh depended on the German army to keep the Ustashe in power due to poor local support. Yes, very much the same as any other non puppet axis ally. It was an installed ally. Doesn’t excuse or distance it from Croatian history. I’m tired of that irrelevant argument. Croatia is included in the ISC title so don’t worry too much about it. I find it odd how that is the claim jumped to. That there is at times a push to get away with erasing it from Croatian history. If so wouldn’t I have asked for “NDh” to hide the Croatian name? So tired of such hollow and unproven allusions. Just as I am not trying to erase Slovakian or Serbian collaboration by changing their reference titles in the box or article. I think I am being consistent about occupied territories vs sovereign nations participating. I rest my case. Also Romania, Bulgaria , Hungary before towards w when invaded and Italy were not installed puppet state. Please do review how they were formed BEFORE WWII. I don’t understand the continuing circle of this debate when we agreed to use all official names and to have notes context of what these states were. And I’d find ut odd for anyone to object. Tah tah all :) OyMosby (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The point of the "continuing circle" are the people arguing for a special status for Croatia, or that Croatia's circumstances were unique. As I've said, I'm OK with using official names for all, though it's not my first choice. FOARP (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I get that but I wanted to clarify that it is not only ISC that is a a special case but occupied areas where puppet protectorates were put in that are particular cases, not just one of the. I am fine with the full names for all. Again just wanted to be clear. ISC was an example I more familiar with hence why I tend to use it as an example. Anyway hope we can move on and have this article achieve GA! Cheers OyMosby (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Iraq

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How can Iraq been part of the axis if it was a British colony? Wouldn’t it be an ally? 99.247.39.72 (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It wasn’t a British colony. There was British administration under a League of Nations Mandate until 1932 when the Kingdom of Iraq gained independence. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally the article nowhere actually says that Iraq was a member of the Axis per se. FOARP (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

False Info

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bulgaria had been on the losing side in the First World War and sought a return of lost ethnically and historically Bulgarian territories, specifically in Macedonia and Thrace (all within Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Kingdom of Greece and Turkey). - Since when Thrace and Macedonia (who have been there before 2.000 bc, centuries before Bulgarians even existed (4ad)) have historical connections with Bulgaria? Its like saying the English were the first tribe to set foot on Albion. Everything Bulgaria and Skopje has, are stolen from other countries, thanks to their best friends, the Ottomans, the Nazis and later the Americans. Saying that they have historical connection with these lands is a false info aiming to raise national socialism. ALSO the word Hebros is not "Thracian". Hebros was the son of Rodope and Haemos in ancient Greek Mythology. Ancient Greece was divided into city-states. They all spoke the Greek Language.In Greek language the name of this river is Evros. In Bulgarian is called Marica. It is unbelievable how much support and promotion these pro axis countries get nowadays.

Do not try to rewrite history in order to fit your agenda. Do your homework. Stop reading "European" historians who received loads of briberies.

I have edited the relevant section to say "Bulgaria had been on the losing side in the First World War and sought a return of what the Bulgarian leadership saw as lost ethnically and historically Bulgarian territories". Does this answer your concerns? FOARP (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edits

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Now that the page is more stable (particularly, now that the edit-warring over infobox content has apparently ended) I would like to make some edits to get this page closer to being ready for WP:GA nomination. One obvious edit that needs doing is to get the page closer to MOS:LEAD. To do this I need to make the lead section into simply a summary of the rest of the article, which means moving some of the discussion of what the Axis actually was into its own section - I'm thinking of making an "etymology" section to include this content. FOARP (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

This edit request to Axis powers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What the hell happened here??? The romaji in this article used to be correct, and then there's this bonehead named @Dottasriel2000: trying to "correct" it twice (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1021947192&oldid=1021541271 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1023787868&oldid=1022763432) and getting it completely wrong both times for no good reason. If it ain't broke, why bother fixing it? Mazamadao (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Woah, dont be salty enough im just adding romaji because not all can read Japanese properly so chill out and watch your language man... Dottasriel2000 (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyway i edited twice because the first one is wrong translation until the user named User:Sasuyan correcting me. That's why im editing twice. Dottasriel2000 (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

And again watch your language Mazamadao Thank you. Dottasriel2000 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

How about you watch your conduct??? "Salty"??? I'm frankly sick of people who are either too lazy or too confident in their own ability to make these kinds of bad, pointless, uncalled-for edits. The article was fine, until you add your pointless "contribution". Next time you try to do something, ask yourself, if it's necessary, if you know enough to do it, if you have done enough research. It doesn't take much to find good information (https://jisho.org/search/axis%20power). It doesn't take much to Google. It doesn't take much to verify with the corresponding Japanese article. If you can't even be bothered to spend all that much MINIMAL effort to make sure things are correct before you add them in, don't be offended when someone call you a bonehead, because that is real saltiness. In this case, it's just one click away to verify the accuracy of the romaji, and you couldn't even be bothered to do that, and you still have the gall to think that you're in the right. There are people who have done real damage with this kind of overenthusiastic can-do attitude that you seem to possess. That whole Scots Wikipedia debacle is an easy example. Mazamadao (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

And you know what pisses me off the most? You were so self-assured that you even replaced the original romaji with your, and I repeat once again, WRONG romaji. The article is locked now so I cannot wipe off the stain you smear on it.Mazamadao (talk) 03:44, 20 July 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) 10:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The change is as simple as reverting the changes that this individual, Dottasriel2000, made. It's quite difficult to find a source that uses the precise romaji Sūjikukoku, which makes sense because unless we're talking about a bilingual Japanese-English dictionary, there's really no point for any Western publisher to use the Japanese name for "Axis power", let alone its a romaji. I did find one reference here. At the end of the day though, it shouldn't be too difficult to simply convert the kana spelling given in the Japanese article (すうじくこく) to romaji using Hepburn romanization, which gives Sūjikukoku. There are several dictionaries that provide kana readings, such as Daijirin, which you can use as a source if only the kana needs to be cited, while the romaji can simply be deduced with Hepburn romanization. Of course you have to deduce correctly, not like what that individual has done.Mazamadao (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

PS: There's a Wiktionary entry for 枢軸国 apparently, and a romaji is generated there based on the kana spelling. As for whether it should be capitalized (Sūjikukoku as opposed to ''sūjikukoku), I'll leave for qualified editors (not including that individual) to decide.Mazamadao (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever boomer... Youre still salty to me tough... Dottasriel2000 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dottasriel2000: If your mindset is this childish, do re-evaluate your life and the time you're wasting for yourself and others. I'd love to be salty if I can stop people like you from ruining good things for no good reason.Mazamadao (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed it to the proper romaji (Sūjikukoku), so I'm closing the edit request. Mlb96 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mlb96: You seem to have missed another instance in the Infobox template, which is a lot more visible. Could you fix it real quick?Mazamadao (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Mlb96 (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Spain

Latest comment: 2 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion

As the article stands, it emphasizes Franco’s well documented and well known ties to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and puts them into the context of Spain’s wartime alliances with these two countries. It completely ignores Franco’s very extensive and well documented ties to Britain (without which he would never have come to power; it was British spies who arranged the airplane that returned him to peninsular Spain) and also completely omits the British government’s well-documented and very strong sympathies for him (Eden, the British Foreign Secretary was telling people that he hoped for a rapid victory by Franco.) Britain very selectively interpreted its policy of non-intervention in such a way as to aid Franco’s victory and more importantly prevent a Republican victory. Because British public opinion was divided and very passionate, His Majesty’s Government was as discreet as possible and happy to let Germany and Italy do the “heavy-lifting” if they wanted to. But that doesn’t mean that the British government wasn’t keen to see Franco win, wouldn’t have done much more to help him if necessary and that Franco wasn’t grateful to them to.

When the French government under Blum wanted to begin to change how non-intervention was interpreted so as to prevent a total Nationalist victory, HMG was happy to see Blum quickly toppled, some sources allege that they encouraged it.

The Spain section of this article, as it now stands, extensively discusses Germany and Italy’s contribution to the Nationalist victory and puts it into the context of Spain’s wartime relations with those countries, but it doesn’t devote a word to the - at times crucial - British help to Franco, and thereby creates a totally false impression.

It also completely omits Franco’s very significant ideological differences with Nazi Germany (but that’s not what this here is about.)

If the article mentions German and Italian aid to Franco it must also mention British help, otherwise it is not balanced and misleading. Let’s fix it!Alterrabe (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

First of, this article is about the Axis powers, so material about British support for franco is not really on topic. As Britain was not, and never was part of the Axis. Secondly, what are those tel numbers you keep adding?Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This part of the article simply is not about the Axis powers, but about how close Spain was to them, and particularly about Spain’s debt to and dependence on them, and their closeness in general. A reader can only make an informed judgement of this if he understands that Spain also had other friends and helpers. No Wikipedia article about Spain’s relationship with the Allies during the war would neglect some mention of its substantial ties to the Axis powers; it would be ridiculous. And the same applies the in the other direction. Now let’s fix this.Alterrabe (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

But the stuff about Brtaions does not tell us anything about why they sided with the Axis as much as they did. Spain actively aided they Axis with troops, that is why their relations hip with the Axis is important, did they send any troops to aid the UK? This tells us nothing about their relationship with the Axis.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This Wikipedia section is for facts, not superficial interpretations. Spain did send soldiers, volunteers, to fight the Soviet Union, but at all times it observed, yes admittedly to the extent that was politically possible, but so did every neutral country - neutrality towards the United Kingdom, United States and France. If Spain had “taken the Axis side” as you assert, there would have been no reason for the Wehrmacht to debate invading and occupying Spain, as was indeed done. So it would be fair to say that it sided against the Soviet Union, who had supported the Republican side, but to say it took sides against the United States, the United Kingdom etc simply isn’t true. Yes, certain favors were granted, but this was in the context of the Wehrmacht occupying the neighboring country. As for the Division Azul, Hitler put Franco under enormous pressure to “take sides in the war” as you say, including invading Spain which wouldn’t have been able to resist the Wehrmacht, and he avoided doing so by insisting on quid pro quos that he knew hitler would never accept and sending the division Azul to placate Hitler. Churchill would have had enormous problems of Franco had joined forces with Hitler when Nazi Germany was at the height of its powers. But Franco, who had no use for Hitler’s ideology, and for that matter excellent relations with Spain’s Jewish community, was simply not up for it. You are free to have your opinions but not your own facts. To say that Franco who saved more Jews from the Holocaust than Churchill sided with the Nazis defies any common sense.Alterrabe (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I also note you have still have not explained what the Tel numbers were.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Some browsers automatically add tel to certain numbers. Don’t blame me!Alterrabe (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven: there’s no reason to include anything about Britain in this article as Britain was not part of the Axis. The argument that it should be included because “a reader can only make an informed judgement of this if he understands that Spain also had other friends and helpers” is just not true and is the thinnest of shoehorns. I think the OP should direct their attention to Spain–United Kingdom relations#Twentieth century but even there bearing in mind WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware that American intelligence viewed Franco’s Spain as “neutral but on the side of the Allies?” https://twitter.com/jackjolis/status/1452265927186210821?s=21 How can that be irrelevant to a discussion of which side Franco’s Spain was on?Alterrabe (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I think someone on twitter repeating something his Dad once told him is the archetype of a source that is not WP:RS. In any event, it’s also got nothing to do with adding material about the UK’s attitude to Franco in an article about the Axis. DeCausa (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The point is that I can find you plenty of “reliable sources” that say the exact same thing. So that objection is irrelevant. And no, this isn’t about the “UK’s attitude to Franco” as you say, but about Franco’s attitude to the UK, because understanding it is indispensable to adequately understanding his attitude to the Axis powers.Alterrabe (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It isn’t though. You’ve not made any connection between Franco’s relations with Britain and this article and you’ve provided no WP:RS to back up your assertions which even if were correct wouldn’t justify inclusion in this article. As i said earlier your interests are much more relevant to Spain–United Kingdom relations#Twentieth century. DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

You’re certainly right that this article is and should be about the Axis and Spain. But it needs to offer an accurate impression of their relationship. By creating the impression that Spain only had at times quite close relations with Germany and Italy without mentioning that Franco had at times a quite close relationship with the UK it creates a totally false impression. For that matter, it should - but doesn’t - also mention the severe disagreements in the relationship with Germany. Hitler famously said that he would rather go to the dentist than meet with Franco. It also falsely implies that Franco was a “fascist.” Franco was a conservative Catholic monarchist [hitler was none of these] who entered into partnership of convenience with Germany and Italy, while at the same time clipping the wings of the Spanish party that actually identified with Fascism.

So yes, by all means, let’s keep any mention of his relationship with the UK as short as possible, but let’s not create the false impression that he only had close relations with the Axis. That would be totally misleading.Alterrabe (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

So it looks like you’re attempting WP:SYNTH. Do you have a source that (a) explicitly says that Franco’s relationship with the Axis should not be overtstated because he had an equal relationship with Britain (b) and that source is not WP:UNDUE? If not, there’s nothing further to be said. DeCausa (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

In my deleted contributions, I quoted a mainstream source, a highly reputed historian, Beevor, of University College London, who writes that the British Government, in the person of its foreign minister, expressed its desire for a rapid Franco victory, and another irreproachable mainstream source explaining how British spies organized Franco’s return from his banishment to take control of the nationalist armies. They even provided the airplane. This completely contradicts the present article which states that Germany and Italy supported Franco because they saw him as their ally against Britain. I am sure that if I scour the book I will find him explicitly saying so.Alterrabe (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You want to use that in a way which breaches WP:SYNTH. The source has to comment on the Spain-Axis relationship for it to be relevant here. You are using that information to make your own editorial comment on what it meant for the Spanish-Axis relationship. Can’t do that. DeCausa (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me point out to the people who assert that any mention of Spain’s links to the Allies is verboten that Brazil’s entry in the corresponding entry on the Allied countries does point out that Brazil had policies that meant it initially “leant towards the Axis powers.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II#Brazil If one article can make it clear that things were complicated, it’s absurd to insist that other articles can’t.Alterrabe (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS never works as an argument. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but that’s not the argument I made. The argument I made was that the 2 articles about the belligerents should meet the same standards. How can anyone be against that?Alterrabe (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That’s exactly the argument you made. Are you going to answer the point on WP:SYNTH and provide a reliable source for the point you are trying to make? DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The entry and Spain-UK relations contains the following sentences: “Franco had substantial support from Berlin and Italy and after 1940 was pressured to join the war. His terms were too high for Hitler to accept; meanwhile Britain made a strong, successful effort to keep Spain neutral.^[1]“ would it not be appropriate to include the last sentence in this entry, to avoid creating false impressions?Alterrabe (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

What false impression?Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

UTC)

The introduction to this article unequivocally states that the anti-Comintern pact was an integral part of the axis alliance. The article on UK-Spain relations unequivocally stated that Spain was neutral, and it was, at least in regards to the western Allies. These two statements contradict and mutually exclude each other, so it is important to explain what actually happened. Let me quote the beginning:

”The Axis grew out of the diplomatic efforts of Nazi Germany, the Kingdom of Italy, and the Empire of Japan to secure their own specific expansionist interests in the mid-1930s. The first step was the protocol signed by Germany and Italy in October 1936. Benito Mussolini declared on 1 November 1936 that all other European countries would from then on rotate on the Rome–Berlin axis, thus creating the term "Axis".[2][3] The almost simultaneous second step was the signing in November 1936 of the Anti-Comintern Pact, an anti-communist treaty between Germany and Japan. Italy joined the Pact in 1937 and Hungary and Spain joined in 1939. The "Rome–Berlin Axis" became a military alliance in 1939 under the so-called "Pact of Steel", with the Tripartite Pact of 1940 leading to the integration of the military aims of Germany, Italy and Japan. As such the Anti-Comintern Pact, the Tripartite Pact, and the Pact of Steel were the agreements that formed the main bases of the Axis.[4]”Alterrabe (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing what you think your edit addresses here. It is not a false impression Spain joined the Anti-Comintern Pact, nor do I see how it is relevant to the idea the Anti-Comintern Pact pact was part of the road towards the Axis, as RS say it was. Spain's neutrality does not affect that. What do you think we are implying that is not true?Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Do not include - Bottom line is that this is an article about the Axis. Relations of non-Axis countries with the Axis are at least peripherally relevant to that. Non-Axis countries relations with non-Axis countries are obviously irrelevant here, especially in a page that is already too long and has no space for this material. This article does not state that Spain was a member of the Axis, it states that Spain was a member of the ACP, and that the ACP was one of three important agreements on which the Axis was based. The article does explicitly state that Spain was nominally neutral during WW2.

Personally, I would be very happy to cut about half the content about Spain and other neutral countries here, and instead focus on the actual Axis, what it was, how it worked, and so-forth. The problem is that RS's do not very clearly define what the Axis actually was so a lot of time here is spent arguing about which countries did/did not belong in the Axis. FOARP (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Denis Smyth, Diplomacy and Strategy of Survival: British Policy and Franco's Spain, 1940-41 (Cambridge UP, 1986).

italian battleships (for the author who was interested two years ago, I cannot find him)

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Storia Militare, vol 102, page 49 (2002) says that the photo of the italian battleships Littorio and Vittorio Veneto does not refer to a war action (as often stated) but to a training in the Taranto gulf during summer 1940 151.29.59.56 (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No need to mention Romania was the only Axis country (other than Germany/Italy/Japan) to have an indigenous fascist government in the infobox

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Even if true (and I'm not going arguing either way) It explains nothing about why Romania is in the infobox and is just cruft there really. Possibly mention it in the relevant section. FOARP (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Axis powers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Some of the dark green (allied until the Pearl Harbour attacks) we're not allied until the Pearl Harbour attack such as Britain, India, Australia, and New Zealand 2A00:23C5:2F88:2101:D4D8:CFB:94C4:180E (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2022 (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. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This edit request to Axis powers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

192.101.255.254 (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Finland was never once apart of the Axis powers, but was just another nation on its own with Axis help.

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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not accurate. Multiple reliable sources, cited in the article, state that Finland was a member of the Axis. Finland even signed a treaty stating that they had been an ally of Germany. The majority of Finnish historians surveyed in 2008 agreed that it had been. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Finland

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is there a reason Finland is listed as an Axis power? It used to be listed as a co-belligerent and then at some point down the line, there was a change and now this is the consensus? Why exactly? Ecpiandy (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ecpiandy - because numerous sources (listed under the infobox) describe them as exactly that. That Finland was only a co-belligerent was the line taken by the Finnish government during WW2, it does not match, for example, what it said in the peace-treaty that Finland signed (which said that they had been an ally of Germany) and does not match the position of, for example, Finnish historians who were surveyed on the subject. For very good reasons when assessing who was and was not a member of the Axis, we do not only go with what the wartime government of that country said.

The criteria for who should be listed in the infobox as a member of the Axis is: do reliable sources say that they were a member of the Axis? On that basis Finland belongs here as multiple sources say that they were. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, they are said to have been an axis ally by RS, that is what we go by. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Finland

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

No, Finland was not an axis power. Illegitimate deals forced on them by genocidal invaders does not make it so and to take the position of the Soviet invaders over that of Finland is an endorsement of Stalin. 2601:586:C400:9970:D83E:FBBD:F63A:349 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

They sided with the Axis, thus they are an axis allied state. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

They are not and this isn’t up for debate. They sided with retaking their own territory which was objectively within their rights. This page reeks of pro-Stalin, pro-rape, and pro-genocide bias. 2601:586:C400:9970:D83E:FBBD:F63A:349 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:soap wp:forum wp:rs wp:or and wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, read the reliable sources cited in the article. Particularly:

Bowman, p.432: "The Axis Powers and the dates they formally entered the war were: [...] Finland: June 25 1941"
Wagner, Osborne, & Reyburn, p. 39: "... the Axis included Finland (allied separately with Germany)..."
Dinardo p. 95: "The fact that Germany's only real interest in Finland was economic placed Finland in perhaps the most advantageous position in regard to Germany of all the minor Axis countries."
Dinardo p. 104: "Although clearly the most militarily able of the allied Axis forces, the Finns were able to place fairly clear limits on the projected employment of their military."
Dinardo p. 106: "Given that the only two participating Axis powers, at least initially, would be Finland and Romania..."
Jukes, p.52: "The only democracy to join the axis, Finland took pains to present its war as one not of conquest but of restitution..."

More over the alternative point of view, advocated during the war by the Finnish government, that Finland was only a "co-belligerent" of their "brothers-in-arms" Germany in the war is contradicted by:

The 1947 treaty that Finland signed with the Allied powers (UK, France, USSR etc.) stating that Finland had been "an ally of Hitlerite Germany".
The historians surveyed by Helsingin Sanomat in 2008, of whom the majority (16 out of 28) agreed that Finland had been and ally of Germany's, and only six disagreed.
The statement of numerous historians contrary to this, for example Immi Tallgren's statement that Finland's role in the war was "... not decisively different from Hungary, Italy or Romania" and that "A few post-war studies and some recent ones have forcefully questioned the “separate war” narrative, leading to a reorientation in dominant historiographical interpretation that is currently ongoing...".

None of this is making any kind of moral judgement about Finland or the Finns, or saying that their role in the war was or was not justified. It is simply doing what we do in Wikipedia, which is rely or reliable sources rather our own original research to tell us what is and is not true. It is clear that most modern historians, and indeed many historians since the war (judging by the Helsingin Sanomat survey, the majority even in Finland), have concluded that Finland was actually part of the Axis for part of the war. In contrast the "separate war", "co-belligerent" theory is now basically a WP:FRINGE one even in Finland, and never generally accepted outside Finland. Now, if you disagree with that, the way to show that is to provide reliable sources saying that Finland was not a member of the Axis, of at least the same number and weight as the above sources. FOARP (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

New FAQ

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Because of the continual "why is country X included?/Why is country Y not included?" stuff I've added some frequently-asked-questions to the header. Please feel free to review and revise. Particularly, this links to the 2021 discussion where it was decided that we were not going to include countries, that no or few reliable sources describe as members of the Axis, in the infobox.

Simply having been a "co-belligerent" or whatever of the Axis, but not described by an reliable source as an Axis member, is not sufficient for being included as a member of the axis. Conversely, if reliable sources typically descibe a country as having been a member of the Axis, it belongs there in spite of whatever announcements about only having been a "co-belligerent" its government made during the war. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit link

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This is a minor edit, but could someone edit the link to the defeat of the axis here:

Highlighted on the right

Piequals3point14159 (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: the link redirects to World War II#Axis collapse, Allied victory instead of World War II#Axis collapse and Allied victory (1944–45) Piequals3point14159 (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: The link directs to World War II#Axis collapse, Allied victory (1944–45) instead of World War II#Axis collapse and Allied victory (1944–45) Piequals3point14159 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. FOARP (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

was the term Axis used by the US/UK to avoid saying "anti-Komintern"?

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This is a long article, and its easy to miss the forest of propaganda for the trees of western nationalism.. but it seems like the "Axis powers" wasn't an actual thing that the "Axis powers" called themselves. It isn't mentioned in the article, I don't think (I only took a few minutes to skim it, though.) I posit that the "Axis" name was tool of misinformation that became ubiquitous in the West. If I am correct, it means that the plan worked well, land continues to work well- if this article is any indication, because nobody blew the whistle on it. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I want to be wrong. I really hope I am.

If my above statement is correct, there should be less commitment to misinformation from privately owned companies that offer encyclopedias, like Britannica. .. one sec.. Bingo! This is all they have on the topic, period:

"Rome-Berlin Axis, Coalition formed in 1936 between Italy and Germany. An agreement formulated by Italy’s foreign minister Galeazzo Ciano informally linking the two fascist countries was reached on October 25, 1936. It was formalized by the Pact of Steel in 1939. The term Axis Powers came to include Japan as well."

Its not looking good, guys.. but my hypothesis seems weak, because SOMEBODY would have mentioned it if were true here, and it should have plenty of references out there published to avoid OR, right? What am I not understanding, here? Know Einstein (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it, as the UK and USA were not exactly pro-commitern themselves. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

"...my hypothesis seems weak..." - This is an understatement. FOARP (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Mussolini came up with the name.[1] DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"Ally of Hitlerite Germany"

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments5 people in discussion

This is a legal term, enshrined into the 1947 Paris Peace Treaties, 1947. Thus, wouldn't it be productive to reorganize - at least the infobox - the list of countries around this official term? "Other Axis states" just seems too broad a brush. This would further dispel any possibly lingering confusion/debates on Finland's place here and on the status of Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria. These weren't clients/puppets; they were allies. Here, I even found a neat Oxford source for this:1. Transylvania1916 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Nor were Italy or Japan "clients/puppets", Saying "other Axis states" does not mean anything other than they were allies to the Axis. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Not all were proper allies. Ally implies the ability to leave, as Romania, Finland and Bulgaria did (and Hungary tried to). Croatia and Slovakia were clients/puppets. Thailand wasn't even recognized as an Axis state. There are differences... Transylvania1916 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

True, but that means then we can't call all of them allies either, thus its best to leave it as is, as Axis Powered just means they had a connection with the Axis. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Transylvania1916 - It's worth remembering that "Axis powers"/"The Axis" is a disputed term and all we can really do is note the countries that are typically included in lists of Axis countries by reliable sources. There was no specific treaty that they all signed, there is no single set of criteria they all meet. There is a section of opinion on this page that wants to distinguish Finland from the other countries typically listed as members of the Axis. Looking at the reliable sources, this is not what you see, where it is noted that the whole "separate war" rhetoric is really not something taken seriously by the majority of historians even within Finland, let alone outside it. "Other Axis countries" means just that and nothing else - other members of the Axis, that were not major powers. These could also be called "minor Axis" or similar but I don't think it would change anything in terms of the discussion on this page. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps it sounds like a dumb question, but I will venture regardless: why does it matter if a member was a major power or not? Shouldn't deeds prevail over status? Romania never allowed itself to become a puppet, and it willfully contributed more to the Axis cause (including the Holocaust) than Italy. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a distinction made in (some of) the sources, no real reason beyond that. I should also emphasise here that including or excluding countries from the list of Axis countries is not any kind of judgement on their level of guilt or whatever in Axis war crimes: it's just about what the sources say, that's it. FOARP (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Then why have any separation in the infobox at all? When people see "Major" they tend to discount anything outside this category. Romania was just as instrumental (if not more so) than Italy in the Axis waging of war. Most of my adult life, I genuinely believed this popular lie, that outside GerItaJap there's nothing notable. Then I discovered the sheer rabbit hole that is Romania, and my mind was blown. How Italy is still recognized as more important for the Axis than Romania is beyond me. But anyway, excuse my rant there, just venting. Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Italy was a great power. That is why it is considered major. It designed and constructed its own battleships, designed and produced all types of aircraft and fought on just about every front. I do not see the value in singling out one phrase from the post-war treaties in the infobox. It's important, but that's not the place for it. Srnec (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Srnec and others. Transylvania1916, You're making the same mistake with this edit as you did at the other article where we met. The Infobox is for simple basic facts - a quick reference for readers. What you've done with that change is leave the reader wondering what the hell is the difference between a "major Axis power" and "other Axis powers" on the one hand (the meaning of those being obvious) and "Ally of Hitlerite Germany" in scare quotes on the other... with a footnote which doesn't explain the diiference (and if a footnote is needed to expain something in an Infobox something has gone wrong anyway.) There's nothing wrong with the concept of "Ally of Hitlerite Germany" going into the article with a proper explanation for it. Just not the Infobox. The Infobox is not the main vehicle for the transmission of information about the article topic. DeCausa (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

To pile on here: the fact that the 1947 treaties did identify some of the Axis members as "Allies of Hiterite Germany" does not mean we should adopt that framework wholesale. This is an article about the Axis as a whole. The division between "Major" and "minor"/"other" is a distinction you see used in some of the sources, but no source uses this as a distinction when listing the Axis countries exhaustively. FOARP (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll also say I agree with DeCausa that we shouldn't really need foot notes on the Infobox. The reason we have them is because of the number of edits/comments we get where people ask why country X isn't included or why country Y is included in the Infobox. It has to be said that these have died down considerably since the footnotes were introduced so from that perspective they are working. I think a lot of this is just POV-pushing between partisans of various countries, particularly Finland which I really have to say I am very tired of discussing here. That Finland wasn't part of the Axis is basically just a meme that most reliable sources don't take seriously. At the very least some of the footnote content is unnecessary (it isn't necessary to state that countries were puppet states because that is essentially irrelevant for explaining who says they were Axis states) and we should not be using the footnotes to make wild assertions that are nothing to do specifically with whether the state in question was an Axis state (e.g., stating that Romania replaced Italy as Germany's main partner). FOARP (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"Wild assertions"...I take issue with that. Not only there are multiple RS publishers that state this, but even absent these, which country, exactly, would go on to replace Italy as second Axis power in Europe? Just because you see something for the first time doesn't mean it's "wild". Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The Axis was more than 3 countries...

Latest comment: 1 year ago32 comments4 people in discussion

At many points throughout this article, the Axis is treated as if it was just 3 big countries. Whole sections address only the main 3, as if the others - with their cumulative tens of millions of people - did not exist, and even though the section in question could well include at least some of the "minor" Axis countries. Preferably not segregated between "major" and "minor". You must understand just how toxic this division is: when people see "major", they instantly tend to ignore the rest, thinking that only these "major" ones are worth reading about. And...It's not the case. It absolutely isn't. Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the purpose of your post is. Is there anything specific you are proposing? In general terms, yes, Germany, Japan and Italy are way more significant than the others. I don't see a problem recognising that. In fact, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV requires it. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I would like to add Romania's oil to the "Economic resources" section, for starters. But I am somewhat discouraged by the G-I-J exclusivity within the section, and I wouldn't want to put in the work only to have it reverted. I also strongly advise including the "minor" countries in the heading. Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with mentioning Romanian oil. But, objectively, Romania was not one of the three major Axis powers. So don't go mad - there can't be disproportionate focus on Romania compared to the major 3. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is this status thing so important? Italy doesn't hold a candle to Romania in terms of contribution to the war (by which I mean both military and in terms of resources). It really just seems to me to be a petty status thing, and this infuriates me to no end...But nevertheless, I will do my best to abide by your recommendation. Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It just reflects what the WP:RS say per WP:DUE. Can you cite a RS that says that Romania was more significant as an Axis power than Italy? DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I can cite one that argues for parity between the two, but it would definitely be in the minority, so perhaps I shouldn't bother. Romania did become more important within the Axis after the September 1943, and I do have multiple RS publishers stating this. In the article I only used the one published by an university, but I can back it up if need be. Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

but it would definitely be in the minority Have you read WP:DUE? I would suggest that's a Wikipedia policy that you need to look at closely. DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I will, thanks. Transylvania1916 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey, can I ask you something? Is it a "wild"/"far-fetched" assertion that Romania became the second Axis power in Europe after Italy surrendered in September 1943? I do have multiple RS for this, but even absent these, would it be? The second Axis power in Europe is naturally the sovereign state next in line. And I doubt it could be argued that this wasn't Romania. I struggle to understand why this would be problematic to state. Transylvania1916 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That is because up until the Italian surrender they were the big three and in fact were the initial signatories to (what was called) the Tripartite Pact. In fact, Ruamian was not at war until 1941. and was only a major ally of Germany for about a year. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Why segregate the Axis countries to begin with? Honest question. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

To show which one were founding members? Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

And that matters, because? Again: it's a petty and useless status thing, it's not actual contributions to the war effort that matter, it's some arbitrary status. I got 2 sources that explicitly state that Romania was on par with Italy. Both are in English, by British authors. Both of whom are actually specialized on Romania. If one really digs into Romania, one realizes that there's really no reason why Romania shouldn't be considered a major Axis power. But the "standard" works on the Axis - which this article and others stubbornly stick to - treat Romania as an afterthought. They don't really know the extent of Romania's contribution. And when - alas - I try to give Romania due weight, I'm treated like I have a problem... Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Well lets see, RS disagree (see wp:undue), most RS count only Itlay as a major axis ally. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Their lacunae are not an excuse/argument. If something is incomplete, one should complete it. Anyway, how many different RS - that put Romania on par with Italy - do I need? I got 4 already, but I can dig more. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As you yourself say " But the "standard" works on the Axis - which this article and others stubbornly stick to - treat Romania as an afterthought. ", so until the "standard works" say Rumania was major axis power it's a fringe view. By the way, the sources would have to say "major axis power", and not a case of wp:or for a user to draw conclusion based on what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The "standard" works are quite antiquated, perhaps one should consider replacing them. At any rate, I got 4 RS which admittedly don't say "major Axis power", but they do explicitly refer to Romania as "on a par with Italy". Specifically, I would suggest a note in the heading, right after the 3 "major" Axis countries are enumerated, which would state: "Although certain sources also consider Romania as a principal ally, on a par with Italy." Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this, nothing has been said to change that, and until there is I remain opposed. Thre is no point in arguing the same points over and over again. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

So 4 RS - including one published by Cambridge University - are "nothing" to you? I would think that these would worth at least a note. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, these are the sources which state that Romania was on a par with Italy as a major ally: 1 2 3 Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources listed above -- Can I use them anywhere in this article? As a note at Romania in the infobox? Somewhere in the text? I just don't want them to go to waste. Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

We already use at least one, you could try reading the article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Just... Explain to me. Why aren't these enough for even a note in the heading? Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You link to three sources, two of which are actually by the same author, Dennis Deletant, and the third is simply quoting him. That amounts to one source, albeit Deletant is a decent enough one. What exactly is the edit you want to make based on that? It's unclear to me. DeCausa (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I for one would look at the publisher rather than the author. I just added them in the heading, in a parantheses. Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No that's irrelevant. All the sources you've cited present the opinion of one historian - Deletant. Now can you clearly say what the edit is and where it is? Are you still talking about the infobox or something in the body of the article? If it's the infobox then the opinion of one historian obviously isn't enough. If it's to go into the body of the article then that may be a different matter. But I can't tell exactly what you are proposing. DeCausa (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It's in the heading, the very first couple of sentences. Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just found it and reverted it. You mean the lead not the "heading". You can't put the opinion of one historian in the lead like that, especially while you haven't got consensus. The place for it is in the section on Romania and it should begin with something like "Dennis Deletant believes that Romania was..." You'll need to find an appropriate context for it in that section as well. DeCausa (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletant is well-versed in Romania. The sources taken as "standard" by the gatekeepers of this article don't even address Romania to any meaningful extent. They wouldn't really know. Transylvania1916 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

And now I've found that it's already in there quoting Deletant. I don't see that there's anything that needs adding. DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see what is being argued is that Romania was one of the major axis powers on a par with Germany, Italy, and Japan. Simply none of the texts that lists the Axis powers actually considers it so. Deletant discusses various aspects in which Romania was an important ally to Germany, but this is not the same thing as him saying they were on a par with DE/IT/JP.

I agree with De Causa above that neither the lead section nor the infobox are the right places to discuss the views of a single historian about a single Axis country. If anything, there is already too much in these sections and the article is too long and addresses to much that is peripheral to the actual topic of the Axis powers. FOARP (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The new map added has some big mistakes, for example the map depicts Austria and Czechoslovakia as part of the Axis, when in reality Austria was annexed into Germany, while Czechoslovakia was split in two, with Czechia being occupied and transformed into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, while Slovakia became a client state and one of the signatories of the Tripartite Pact.

Also, Indochina is painted blue, even though it was a French colony, and France was on the side of the Allies, while France itself is divided into the free and occupied parts, which wasn't the case in 1939.

It really needs to be fixed. -- 2804:248:FBC0:5B00:C0E1:9D7C:6B2:EA60 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the map is somewhat flawed. The flaws are much more obvious when you click on it and view it in detail: random parts of the map coloured with the Axis colour (e.g., a border region between Burma and India) and countries labelled as Axis members (e.g., Iraq) for which there is no source in the article. It should give a specific date (e.g., mid-1942 when the Axis was at its zenith) and be better sourced. Ideally it should be cropped to the Eurasian land mass and territories of Japan where all the Axis members were. FOARP (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Article title?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article title is "Axis powers", however the article covers the entire Axis (and much besides). The infobox has now been changed to "Major Axis powers" and "Other Axis states", which implies that the other states were possibly not "powers". I'm not going to bother with an RM discussion unless other people agree with this, but this has always struck me as a bit inconsistent - was every member of the Axis an "Axis power" or just some of them? I know we typically don't like article-titles that begin with "The" but isn't the real topic here "The Axis"? Right now The Axis redirects to this article anyway, it surely is the WP:PRIMARY topic compared to other potential axes (e.g., Axis of evil). Am I wrong here? FOARP (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure that not being a major power does not still make you not a minor power. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Finland section

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some chapters are unsourced in the Finland section. I don't see anything factually wrong, and I tried sourcing the sentences but I am unable because the article is protected.

Source for United States special diplomatic relationship with Finland, never declared war (page 62) Google Books: K. Piirimäe (2014-09-11). Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Baltic Question: Allied Relations during the Second World War. Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-44234-5. Retrieved 2023-05-01.

Source detailing the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement and the end of the Finnish-German relationship (page 6-7): Google Books: Jussi M. Hanhimäki (1997). Containing Coexistence: America, Russia, and the "Finnish Solution". Kent State University Press. ISBN 978-0-87338-558-9. Retrieved 2023-05-01. 91.158.146.53 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)