Talk:Axis powers/Archive 4

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

message: I think it's a real problem that the number of murdered people in the Jasenovac concentration camp numbers 30-100,000, when the Jasenovac Concentration camp article on wiki speaks of hundreds of thousands. Up to 3/4's of a million with some sources. Anyone care to fix that once it's unlocked? Thanks 24.66.94.140 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now requested that the article be unprotected again as we have agreed on a section about Denmark. The information in this article certainly needs to correspond to the information found in related articles. You are welcome to change it yourself once the article has been unprotected. Also, be sure to include the source of your numbers. Thank you. MartinDK 11:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can all feel justifiably proud of the way this turned out. This is exactly how Wikipedia talk pages were intended to work. If you read through the evolution of this issue here, you find people having heated disagreements (really heated, to the point of name-calling and temporary bans), which gradually build to a consensus, and finally the article gets a valuable addition, in this instance the "case of Denmark" section. Bravo! -Amatulic 16:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can certainly feel proud. Also, I have learned a lot from this including how to handle such disagreements in a productive way. By bringning more people here and working on a balanced and well-sourced addition to the article we turned an ugly discussion into a collaboration that within a few days produced what I consider to be perhaps the most well-written and sourced part of the article. If we could only apply the same methology to the rest of the article I am sure this important article could turn out really well. When I first visited this article about two months ago it was a mess with two people having a discussion about the status of Finland. Today it is a collaborative project aimed at improving the entire article. This is what makes Wikipedia great. People coming together to work on things they are passionate about and experienced editors like you and others showing people like me how things should be handled and done. MartinDK 17:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed nice to see things turning out this way. Creating and maintaining conflicts and myths is all too easy. Trying to find out what exactly happend at a certain point in time is often a lot more difficult than people normally think. This is what makes history both incredibly frustrating but also incredibly interesting. The task is even worse when you are dealing with an issue which can still stir up powerful emotions. Denmark seems pretty well covered now. Let's hope the rest of the article will be raised to a similar standard. Let the past speak for itself.  Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue 

message: I think the article is starting to look good now. The overall structure of the article seems to fit the consensus here and it is already very long now. I think we should focus getting more sources added and fix whatever errors there may be in the text as it is now. I definately think that we should be critical of what is already in the article but I think the most urgent problem is getting the unreferenced tag removed. Of course that is just my opinion :-) MartinDK 15:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that much of the text doesn't need references because it's well-known history. There should probably be at least one reference per section, however. If you have a history book about WWII, there's nothing wrong with referencing a book rather than an online source. =Axlq 04:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. As you will be able to see from the discussion about Denmark the information very much depends on your sources and not all sources are equally authorative. Also, how do you define "well-known"? How do you tell myth from truth without sources? That would apply to most of Wikipedia in which case we might as well skip sources all together since Wikipedia is not intended for original research. And I hardly think thats the way neither of us wants Wikipedia to turn out. The reason we need sources is so we can verify the information, use the sources to settle disputes and value the quality of the information in the article. If the information is "well-known" the surely you must be able to find lots of sources we can add? MartinDK 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further required editing 

message: This is stupid. The term "Axis Powers" is unique to WWII (that's what people will automatically think of when hearing the term) and should be the title of this article.
:On the contrary: I moved it because there are many other uses of axis, such as the Axis of evil. The new name also mirrors Allies of World War II.  On a lesser note, it's against Wikipedia policy to use unnecssary capitalisation like "Powers", unless it's Austin Powers :-) Grant65 | Talk 10:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem here is that you didn't discuss it with the rest of us first. Even if you disagree with the point that the term is unique to WW2 you should have posted a comment here first so the rest of us could have discussed it with you. A better choice would have been Axis powers (World War II) and then let Axis powers simply list this article as well as Axis of evil. Not in any way a perfect solution in my opinion but at least a way to reach a consensus. Also, you didn't even change the link on the Axis article even though you obviously visited that article as well. MartinDK 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Consensus is not required, especially when it is a clear-cut matter of Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)). I guess there are some articles with "(World War II)" as a qualifier. There are quite a few with "of World War II" as a qualifier. I don't really have an opinion on which is better. I have now fixed the link for axis. Grant65 | Talk 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the Title Back 

message: Should we include Baltic states here?--Nixer 19:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a bit odd to me. Stalin annexed them, so no Baltic administrations existed that could have joined the Axis. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their independence was not revived after the Nazi invasion of Russia.  All three were incorporated into the Reichskommissariat Ostland. White Guard 23:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact that existed. I read about a pro-Nazi government in Latvia that existed for a short time when German forces already retreated and Soviet not arrived yet.--Nixer 17:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Pro Nazi? After the Germans retreated and with the Soviets at the gates?  Even stupidity has limits.  Anyway, even if there was, which I doubt, these suicidals could hardly be said to constitute an Axis state, or even a puppet state, in any meaningful sense..  White Guard 00:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was led by a pro-Nazi collaborator. I'll try to research the topic better. The intrigue is that the present-day government recognizes that government to be legitimate and positions themselves as its successors.--Nixer 00:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a long time ago I read the finer details about this story, but as far as I remember, Jüri Uluots (Prime Minister acting in the function of President, and very sick by cancer) basically asked Otto Tief to form a government in the feeble hope that the USSR would recognize Estonian independence when the Germans left. That attempt lasted less than one month. Unless either of them made active efforts to join the Axis by signing treaties with Hitler or something similar, such a categorization doesn't make sense to me. The Baltic peoples didn't love Hitler, but the NKVD had pretty clearly demonstrated in 1940-41 what Soviet rule implied, so it is quite correct that the Balts didn't see the USSR as liberators, but rather as the occupier it had been 1940-41. The "elections" proclaiming accession to the USSR had been a complete farce in all three countries and the NKVD's deportations etc. speaks pretty much for itself. For most Baltic people (except the Jews), Hitler would simply have been seen as the lesser evil, but that does not make the Baltic people Nazis per se. If we really want to split hairs, I'm not sure if Uluots even had the power to form a government in the first place. Konstantin Päts was still alive, although living in a Soviet prison. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this  Estonian site all the story explained in details. 20 april 1944 the Election Assembly convened. It decided that appointment of Vares by Pats was illegal and appointed Uluots Deputy President. He appointed Otto Tief premier and Alfred Maurer deputy premier. 18 September Uluots appointed new government with Otto Tief as deputy Premier (acting) and Domestic Minister. This government is recognized as legal by present-day Estonia. There was even formal ceremony of transfer of power from the government in exile (decended from th Otto Tief's government) to the present-day Estonian government in early 1990s (it does not recognize the Soviet Estonian government as its legal predecessor). Also this site says that even before the establishment of this government Jüri Uluots made a radio address encouraging people to support the German mobilization.--Nixer 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just as did Vicy France. We have here paragraphs about Vichy France, Denmark and so on. Why not Estonia? By the way, those who fought against the Red Army (including SS members) receive pension in present-day Estonia and considered fighters for Estonia, while members of Red Army and partisans considered traitors and receive no pension or any other social welfare.--Nixer 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That how history is viewed in current day Estonia is irrevelant about article of Axis powers in WW II(which was 60 years ago). Main reason why Estonian independence was declared then Germnas had left and soviets had not arrived was that Germany did not allow it. So its hard for me to see how to connect that Estonian government to axis as it was created without German permission, it practically did not cooperate with Germany at all(armed units that supported that government were not loyal to Germany any more) and it declared neutrality. (Staberinde 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All laws in Estonia were restored by Germans from their status by 20 June, 1940. They also restored Estonian courts (local and supreme) and recognized Estonian citizenship. By the end of July, 1941 Uluots convened an assembly where they created a memorandum, thanking Germany for freeing Estonia.--Nixer 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Estonia and all the other Baltic states were part of the Richskommisariat Ostland under German occupation, as I have already said, and had no practical independence.  Most of the above points are quite irrelevant to the page in question, clearly arising from contemporary political controversies.White Guard 00:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltic states 

message: Someone should write something about the Principality of Pindus. I can't decide where to put it, however - since it was both an Italian and Bulgarian puppet state - maybe under collaborators? --PaxEquilibrium 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pindus-Macedonian Principality 

message: Were is information about Norway's collaboration government? It sent the troops to Russian front, also there was an Norway SS Divisions. - Ghoort 10:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Norwegian government fled to London during the German invasion. The Germans installed their own administration, but it did not have constitutional legitimacy. Norway should not be included here. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Norway should be included here, but solely because of Quisling's puppet government. Quisling gave name to the collaborators and it is still used today. The inclusion should have nothing to do with legitemacy of the government, but historical importance. (Well, Quisling's government didn't have practically any other importancy but this naming thing...) The cold fact is that Quisling's government is well known name around the world. It means that it shall be explained here (See Denmark for another example), otherwise it raises questions about the neutrality and impartiality of the Wikipedia. --Whiskey 12:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic has been discussed before. The fact that Quisling betrayed his countrymen and women is dealt with in several other articles. It is not a reason for including Norway in this article. Inge 12:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this article includes other puppet regimes, such as in Serbia and India.--Nixer 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: The section on Thailand under Co-belligerents needs to be grammaticized. 
:Also - what does 'co-belligerent' mean? Jake95 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can help answer this. 'co-belligerent' was the term chosen months ago to describe the situation in Finland. Finland was initially supportive of the German war effort in the region because Finland itself was at war with the Soviet Union. However, this support was purely based on the logic that Finland's own existance was threatened by the war so from a strategic point of view it made sense. Finland later switched sides and fought the Germans. This has been debated before and there is a lot more to it than what I just wrote. But it is this complicated situation that we chose the term 'co-belligerent' to describe. The fact that other nations were later added under that section of the article is frankly still unclear to me since that section of the article was created to describe the unique and to this day very sensitive situation in Finland at the time. MartinDK 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Co-belligerence. Although Finland was de facto ally of Germany, it wasn't allied de jure due to ideological differencies. There are numerous examples also in modern world for similar situations, like Iran being co-belligerent with USA against Taliban or Saudis with USA against Iraq.--Whiskey 09:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thailand 

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

message: It seems user Staberdine opposes putting Spain into Axis collaborator section. Any reasons why not to do so?--Planemo 10:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read through the archives and you will see why we agreed on this. Also please do not change the Denmark section without talking about it here first. We already had one revert war over this. You are free to raise your concerns overt the factual accuracy here but please do not make such edits without talking about it first. MartinDK 10:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already looked through archives and found no discussion regarding Spain. Some users argued it should not be shown as an Axis power, but nobody argued that Spain was not Axis collaborator.--Planemo 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Axis_Powers/Archive4#Spain_.26_Vichy_France I am not saying it can't be changed but this article is a mine field and we know from experience that we need to talks things htrough here before we change the article. MartinDK 10:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I read the archive and found no reason why Spain should be placed in a separate category than Danmark--Planemo 11:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh... why did you change your signature from User:Nixer ? 
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axis_powers_of_World_War_II" Reinserted by me as the below editor removed it MartinDK 07:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, Planemo.  There is no factual dispute as to Spain's status as an Axis collaborator.CaesarRosso 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no dispute that Spain should classified as an Axis collaborator.  If there is any dispute, please state a factual basis.  Otherwise, cease with the reverts, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SPAIN WAS AN AXIS COLLABORATOR, PERIOD.  Franco was installed by German and Italian troops and both sympathized and collaborated with the Axis.  CaesarRosso 05:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Ethiopia was consolidated with the Italian colonies of Eritrea and Somolialand to form the new state of Italian East Africa
Is this a typo that should instead be Somaliland?  I'm pretty sure thats the case, but I'm not 100% sure that I am correct. --Bletch 00:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I changed it. MartinDK 07:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible typo? 

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

message: The last line of this says: "An Axis was declared between canada and america by george w. bush, foreign minister of Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini on October 12, 2007."
Is someone trying to make a political statement or are they just being childish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lindyguy (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Addition in first paragraph under Origins... 

message: The Bulgarian Navy fought several skirmishes against the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and sank at least one Soviet submarine. The Soviet submarine was Shch-204 "Minoga" (sank 06.12.1941 30km off Varna harbour near cape Emine during attack against Bulgarian/Romanian convoy. It was found by Bulgarian trawler in 1983) Several sources mention that submarine was heavily damaged by depth charges from Bulgarian patrol boats "Belomoretz" and "Chernomoretz" (built in USA in 1918 for France, purchased by Bulgaria in 1922), broke surface and was destroyed by artillery fire from Bulgarian patrol boats. 
Drawing of the remains of Shch-204.
http://www2.filehost.to/files/2007-02-22_03/184200_sank_soviet_sub__by_bulgarians.jpg 
Bulgarian patrol boat "Belomoretz", captured by Soviets in 1944 and renamed C60.
http://sovnavy-ww2.by.ru/small/pic/c60.jpg 
Several Soviet submarines also exploded on seamines near Bulgarian coast - those were at least S-34 (11.1941 - cape Emine), Shch-211 (11.1941 - cape St. Atanas, it was found in 2000 by Bulgarian divers). Soviet submarines also sank several Bulgarian merchant ships - these included refrigerator ship "Shipka" (2304 GRT, sank by L-4 type submarine 15.09.1941), small transport ship "Struma" (275 GRT, sunk by  submarine Shch-213 24.02.1942), schooner (scuttled by boarding party from the submarine Shch-214 02.06.1942), schooner "Vita" (240 GRT, sunk by submarine Shch-215 24.08.1944). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian skirmishes with Soviet Black Sea Fleet 

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

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

message: The map shows Finland as being under "Axis control" since 7/1941. That implies that Finland was occupied by Axis forces but it was not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.50.237 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. The title should be "Axis powers, puppets, collaborator states, co-belligerents ando occupied areas
" as per the divisions in the article itself. 82.181.150.151 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finland was not under "axis control" 

message: The MAP KEY for the 2nd image (the animated map) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ww2_allied_axis.gif ... seems to be for some other map I think because the only colors used are RED, BLUE, and BLACK... yet the colors in the key-code below the map (when clicked from the main article) shows a whole bunch of colors that don't appear... and doesn't have the colors RED, BLUE, or BLACK that are actually used.  Seems that RED is for Russian controlled Allied Power countries, and BLUE is all the other Allies... BLACK is obviously the Axis Power controlled countries. But what's up with this key?  It's got a bunch of shades of green and orange/brown, but none of the actually relevant colors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ww2_allied_axis.gif
Robk6364 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Color Key for 2nd Map? 

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

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

message: Finland was NOT allied with the Axis powers. They were in war with Soviet but not with the allied powers at large. They had libarated themselves in 1917 from Russia. They were enemeys with the much mightier Soviet so ofcourde they accepted support against them but that does not make allies and a parto of the Axis powers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.250.43.176 (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the statement above "Any state (or country) that wes opposed to the allies during WWII", Finland was a part of Axis, since USSR was with Allies at the time of the conflict Wikisib 20:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Somebody has added aircraft national markings to the article (but tank marking, naval flags, clothing insignia etc, etc.). How are the relevant to the subject when we already have the flags? No more than postal stamps or coins I think. 82.181.150.151 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The minor axis powers in Europe's aircraft markings are clones of Nazi-Germany's aircraft markings. Perhaps they should be assembled in a new section, so that the reader will see the resemblance? Necessary Evil 21:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually remove the lot if it hasn't been done already. All of these countries had scores of National Emblems or symbols, including one in this article is more then sufficient.--Caranorn 11:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: From Participants in World War II:Ever since the times of Garibaldi, San Marino has maintained strong ties with the Italian state. San Marino joined Italy in declaring war on Great Britain in 1940. Following the Italian surrender, San Marino immediately declared its neutrality. On September 21 1944, San Marino declared war on Germany, which eventually occupied the nation while retreating northward. Following the war, San Marino provided for nearly 100,000 refugees.Should this, perhaps, be added? --NEMT 07:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can source it, definitely. But where should San Marino be listed? If it didn't sign the Tripartite Pact, it doesn't belong under "Minor powers", if it wasn't involved in military action, it isn't really a co-belligerent, could it be considered an Italian puppet state? 96T 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if you get a source we will definitely find a way to include it, although it will require some thinking where to put it.--Staberinde 20:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Marino 

message: When I edited the 'Case of Spain' article to include Portugal (which had a comparable view and experience), I added the Portuguese flag. Than, it was deleted, citing the fact that it 'is a current symbol.' Now (pardon the tongue) but WTFrick is going on with THAT?
The Dannenborg (Spelling?) is the World's oldest flag still in use, and is ALSO used today as a symbol of Denmark, but it is included in the 'Case of Denmark' box. Now, did I miss a memo or something? Did Denmark decide to kick out a 500+ year old flag because it was 'past it's prime?' If not, than I see no reason why the Portuguese flag should not be included, as it seems that the Portuguese contribution to the Axis was far more than the Danish one (again, given the fact that the Germans had occupied the country, that there were a few recruits for the Wehrmacht, etc. compared to the large-scale ecconomic, moral, and diplomatic aid given by Portugal in addition to her recruiting for the Axis) 
Is there Any opposition to putting the Portuguese flag back up? 
Speak now, or, in all due likelihood, we will be having this later after an editing war:> ELV
:Spanish and Portugese cases should be splitted into two separate parts as those states were not identical in their actions.--Staberinde 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese Flag 

message: I am of the understanding the civil flag, while declared, was never actually used in practice, and the war flag was present everywhere you would look for any type of state flag.  This is explained somewhat more clearly in Italian Social Republic and Flag of Italy.  Which should be included in the article? --NEMT 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we are using official state flags for other states here, I do not see any reason to make any exceptions. I think adding one war flag then all other states are using state flag can simply confuse average reader who is not very educated in issue.--Staberinde 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Initially I felt the same way, but in the case of RSI never actually using the state flag I felt an exception would make more sense, in addition to aiding readers in distinguishing the RSI from the later Italian republics. --NEMT 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, problem is, if we use war flag then it will cause misunderstandings. For example I personally believed for quite long time that official flag of RSI was the one with eagle. I was very suprized then I found out that official state flag was identical to modern flag of italy.--Staberinde 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing though, it was the de facto official flag. --NEMT 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSI civil vs. war flag 

message: lacks info about the Vichy Milice fighting the French Resistance maquis and the free french commando units in indochina created by de gaulle in 1943. Paris By Night 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to know quite a lot about that part of history, why don't you add some info? I agree it would be good for the article. Manxruler 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: vichy france

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

message: Perhaps Monaco should be included in the section of Italian puppet states.  Italian forces invaded (I believe in 1943), as Monaco had a very large ethnic Italian population.  After the armistice the Nazis took control.  --NEMT 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cases of controversial relations with the Axis of World War II has a Monaco section.--Sus scrofa 23:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Monaco's involvement seems nearly identitcal to Montenegro's, though.  --NEMT 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just saying that the text is there, it could probably be moved from there would someone be so inclined.--Sus scrofa 17:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monaco

message: In 1944 the was a short-lived government in Estonia led by Otto Tief, established just after the Germans retreated and before the Soviets arrived. It was supported by some former SS units and implemented certain resistance to the USSR. Although there was no formal agreement of alliance between this government and Germany, I suggest considering its inclusion in the co-belligerent section. Any thoughts?--Dojarca 13:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Few problems with that, that goverment was established without german permission(that is main reason why it was founded only then germans were already leaving), it declared official neutrality, and forces that supported it were not loyal to germany anymore. Also it was effectively overun in few days with not very notable fighting, that time was pretty confusing anyway, and there were also shootings between estonians and germans. Btw, "some former SS units" were ethnic estonians which had been conscripted to waffen-ss. Also I am pretty sure that this thing has been discussed here before.--Staberinde 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there any fighting between this short-living government and German forces?--Dojarca 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no need for that, insomuch as these entities didn't compete for the same resources.  There were, however, incidents of various warrior groups using force to take over supplies originally stored by the Germans, so as to use these supplies for the following fight against invading Soviets. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 03:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So there was no clashes between them and Germans and there was fighting against Soviets?--Dojarca 07:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're not planning to do any WP:OR and will stick to WP:RS.  Right? ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 07:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, Co-belligerence is waging the war in cooperation against a common enemy without the formal treaty of military alliance. there wasn't any cooperation between Germany and Tief Government.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staberinde (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonia 

message: There should be Czech lands between Minor Powers, but it is not here... Here is something in Slovak Republic about Czechoslovakia, but  that is not enough. Somebody should add it..--Lycantrophe 07:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Czechs were siding with the Axis? Could you elaborate? Manxruler 13:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech is MISSING 

message: The section dealing with Finland's participation in the war claims that Finland joined the war against USSR in 1941 to preserve it's independance. I always thought the main reason for Finnish continuation war was a little more common (even if less noble) in such consequence - revanshism and the desire to return territories seded to USSR as the result of the winter war. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my studies I've also found the desire to conquer areas populated by ethnic Finns in order to create a Greater Finland incorporating East Karelia to have played a role in the Finnish march into the Soviet Union. After all, the Finnish Army did not stop at the old border, but pushed on further east, at least to Petrozavodsk. Manxruler (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finnish casus belli