Talk:Axis powers/Archive 1

message: The main issue which this article fails to solve is how the membership of axis is defined. For example, Finland clearly fought with Germany against Soviet Union, but there wasn't any formal documents for an alliance. 
In my opinion, the production of certain documents can be used for the definition, and they can also present to the readers how deeply certain countries were included to the "Axis". The first steps to this direction were already taken, but unfortunately most of them were removed subsequently. What documents with their signatories should be found here are Pact of Steel, first Anti-Comintern Pact, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Tripartite Pact and second Anti-Comintern Pact.--Whiskey 20:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to define Axis country?

message: The Axis Powers would have taken over the League of Nations Palais des Nations in Geneva (would be renamed Imperial City) l declare that the League is officially reorganized into the Axis Empire. - John V 23:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: League becomes the Axis?

message: Hmm. I may have strayed somewhat to the "dark side" of the Finnish POV in my edit, but reading your considered comment, I realized what the real crux of the matter for me was: the word "considered" suggests a thoughtful evaluation, rather than a convenient verbal usage. I hope my second effort is more to your liking. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 14:35, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)
Understood, and perfectly acceptable, Cimon. Thank you. Graculus 14:34, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: the main problem I had was the word "considered".

message: Why was this moved from Axis Powers?  Collectively the plural is correct; "Axis Power" would be used only when talking about a specific member of the Axis Powers, as in "Axis Power Japan ..." (and probably only rarely even then). --Delirium 18:19 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
According to my understanding of the Wikipedia Naming Convention, singularis is prefered to facilitate linking. The Axis Powers might be referred to individually, and it's then easier to write Axis Powers than Axis Power.
Have I misunderstood this convention?
-- Ruhrjung 14:13 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
While I agree that singular nouns should be prefered to plural ones, as specified in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization), this article is clearly an exception. Every single article that links to this one does not use the phrase Axis Power, but instead uses Axis Powers or just Axis. In no place on Wikipedia is this not plural. Therefore, I feel this is an   exception to the singular rule. I plan to move the article back to Axis Powers, unless there is a strong objection. Mattworld 19:15, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it back for the interim because the decision to move it in the first place was unilateral. --Jiang 21:56, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: Because of Ismet Inonu's wrong strategy, Turkey didn't take part in the World War II. We only declared war to Germany in the last times of the battle when Allies were too close to enter to Berlin. In my opinion, Turkey should shown as a neutral country in the map. With respect, Deliogul 11:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

message: I think that the "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis" is a more appropriate name for this article, since this is the name that Mussolini and Hitler put the axis under. Besides, "Axis powers" could refer to any axis, but the specific name for it is specific to World War II. WhisperToMe 02:51, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Test: Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis - only 378 hits, axis powers" -xslt -xml -toy - 37,000 hits. Axis Powers is clearly the more popular term. Also, I can't think of any other Axis Powers this can refer to at all; if there are some, then this can be disambig-ed. "Axis Powers" is more common, so it is used. Also, the Axis was expanded, as discussed in this article, to include countries other than Italy, Germany, and Japan. Axis Powers is clearly the correct way to refer to this group, as discussed in the article. -- Mattworld 03:00, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, just about every link on Wikipedia refers to this group as the Axis Powers, the only ones that do not are ones changed by WhisperToMe before he/she moved the page. -- Mattworld 03:06, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text:  "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis" needs to be mentioned but it's not the usual way they are described, so it'll only be the right name for the article when there's another "axis powers" to disambiguate and when that one is more common than this one, so a quick link to it at the top of this one can't do justice to the disambiguation. JamesDay 05:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to call the Axis Powers the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo-Budapest-Bucharest-Helsinki-Sophia-Bankock... allince
Cameron Nedland 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis

message: I am certainly no expert in this area, but for all practical purposes, wasn't Vichy France an Axis power? I suppose mentioning it would lead to much gnashing of teeth. 
Paul, in Saudi
First in the last year, and thanks to the wikipedia project, I've understood how much the Axis power is still understood in its context of war time propaganda. Hence, it ought to be of no relevance what sources the French can present, the only relevant thing is if the contemporary Allied propaganda classified the remains of France as an Axis power, or not. — Outside of the anglophone world, however, I seriously doubt that countries defeated by the Axis would be considered Axis themselves.
--Ruhrjung 19:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborators as Axis Powers 

message: The July 24th change by 205.188.112.131 looks rather like a rant. I don't think we need such explication in this article, especially when articles for each of those puppet states exist, and even more because they contain politically loaded statements. --Joy [shallot] 14:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  too wordy 

message: Hi.  In the "Major Axis Powers" section of the article, the entry for Japan says "under Prime Minister Hideki Tojo and Emperor Hirohito".  Our article on Hideki Tojo, however, states clearly that, although the Emperor appointed Tojo Prime Minister, he soon took over completely, and although Hirohito was still nominally in charge, Tojo was the effective dictator of Japan.  The problem I mean to point out lies in that in the entry for Italy there's no mention to King Vittorio Emanuele III, who similarly appointed Mussolini to office and then remained in the shadows while the dictator led Italy into an alliance with Nazi Germany (one that the Italians would latter regret).  So either we remove the mention to the Japanese Emperor in the entry for Japan or we add a similar entry for the Italian King.  Personally, I believe that the first option is preferable, since it appears to be something of a stretch to claim that the Emperor activelly led Japan in its Nazi-like expansionism.  Any objections?  Regards, Redux 13:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incongruence 

message: I cannot believe a few pockets of territory captured by the Japanese, ruled by an extremist leader and recognised by a few Axis and Axis-controlled states can be considered to be India. India was well and truly on the side of the Allies with its armies fighting alongside British and others all over the world. A handful of soldiers who rode in on the coattails of the Japanese do not represent India!
 User:222.153.79.183
:No, you are surely right. However, Wikipedia works after the principle that people make changes they are knowledgeable about, and it seems as if no-one before you has deemed theirself competent to remove this peculiarity, that I believe was quite recently added. 
:Wikipedia begs to be improved!
:Go ahead! /Tuomas 13:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: Bulgaria was an ally of the Axis Powers but the flag you use is a wrong one. ОФ (OF) means Otechestven Front, the Communist-dominated Resistance which fought the Bulgarian Government and the Nazis. --83.148.73.5 13:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG BULGARIAN FLAG 

message: I changed the words "de facto" to "nominal" because Japanese troops were occupying the country at that time, so the Philippine government did not have real independence. 
The Microsoft Encarta online encyclopedia describes the Philippines in 1943 as a "nominally independent Philippine republic" 
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558570_12/Philippines.html
Jlwiki 10:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for editing the Southeast Asia section 

message: "Certain Italian agents arriving to Persia and Afganistan with similar pourposes, but only obtain some accords of actions along islamic tribes,but no advanced of simple proposes." I'd fix it but I'm not exactly sure what it means. I'm thinking...agreed on certain actions with Islamic tribes, but made no advanced plans? Everyking 15:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: Does the Axis have their own flag? --206.255.32.51 14:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axis flag 

message: I don't believe that is the Flag of Vichy France- The Vichy Flag was simply the French Tricolor, as Vichy France claimed to be the legitimate heir to the Third Republic. --24.147.128.141 19:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vichy Flag 

message: Shouldn't the Vatican be in the same category of Switzerland? --Error 23:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vatican

message: I have never heard Cochinchina used to describe the Reformed Government of the Republic of China.  Cochinchina is a place in Vietnam.--Countakeshi 13:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cochinchina? 

message: Look in the article, it was occupied territory under German rule and authority not a power of its own.Likewise Reichkommisariats...--Molobo 23:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General Government

message: Why aren't the Baltic States included in here?  Just becuase they were occupied by the USSR after the war, shouldn't let them off the hook for the crimes they commited and assisted in.
Do you have evidence that after the Germans pushed the Soviets out, the Baltic states freely aligned themselves with the Axis? (That is, the decisions were not made by a Nazi-appointed puppet regime?). That seems to me to be the deciding question, not whether Baltic governments were responsible for war crimes or not.
I'm pretty sure the common people of the Baltic States hated Hitler as much as they hated Stalin.
Cameron Nedland 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Baltic States?

message: "The Soviets invaded another part of former Russian Empire, Finland, on November 30 and seized minor parts of its territory in order to protect, among others, the city of Leningrad,"
So, Soviet agression and attack agaisnt peaceful, democratic country of Finland was justified because Soviets wanted to protect Leningrad from evil Finns who were a treath to Soviet Union? 
.........
(1)As a matter of fact, those concerns unfortunately became a harsh reality: Finland contributed to the bloodiest siege of Leningrad, helping to starve millions of civillians to death. So save these irrelevant "democratic" and "peaceful" labels for someone else. The "peaceful" and "democratic" country of Finland did not hesitate to side with the Nazis during the war, so this is irrelevant.
(2)Finland didin't contribute to the siege on Leningrad. And we only went beyond our original borders so that we could give USSR something in peace negotiationgs. How can someone claim that a country of around 3 million people of that time could pose a thread to USSR which had at more than 100 million at that time.
:(answer to 1)Allow me to laugh sir. You are obviously viewing this subject from a very weird angle. If Soviet wouldn't have attacked Finland the war between the two nations would never have started. Soviet had NOTHING to fear from Finland. Finland was at that time a new country. It had a very weak and small army with out-dated weapons. Was this tiny nation really capable of attacking Soviet? No way, Finland couldn't propose a threath to Soviet, wich was why they allied with Germany AFTER THE SOVIET OFFENSIVE. Germany was Finlands only chanse to survive the war. So in reality Soviet is really to be blamed for the alliance between Germany and Finland. I can't even begin to imagine how you got the picture that you have in to your head. If it wasn't for Soviets mocking Finland wouldn't have played any part in WW2. If Finland wouldn't have allied with Germany it would have ended up as Poland, Estonia etc. But Finland got to keep it's independence.--Hazzlehoff 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finland could be easily occupied by Germany and its territory used as a base for invasion in the USSR. Anyway Finland was definitely anti-Soviet, many whites escaped there and the head of its military Mannerheim was also the former white (in the USSR there was even term белофинны - white Finns). In fact there were strong nationalist forces in Finland that climed some Soviet territory, for example, Karelia.--Nixer 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: I tried to clean up some of the writing for this paragraph but parts of it were incomprehensible to me (and I don't know the information myself). It sounds like it was written by someone whose first language is Russian (or another "Slavic language"), perhaps someone else could "transliterate" it better than me?
Critic9328 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lotok Republic writing 

message: I've read that Doenitz assumed the title of Fuehrer after Hitler committed suicide (the article describes him as "President'). Can anyone else confirm this?
Critic9328 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doenitz was also Fuehrer not President? 

message: Isn't the German flag portrayed actually the flag of the German navy during World War II? The regular Nazi flag had the white circle with a swastika in it centered, and lacked the Iron Cross in the upper-left hand. Perhaps the error is due to an interpretation error ("navy" in German=Kriegsmarine, someone thought that meant "War Flag").
Critic9328 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  German flag naval not "war flag"? 

message: Wasn't Portugal also a sympathetic Fascist country at that time?
Critic9328 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Portugal was anti-Axis, but not necessarily anti-Facist, it incorporated many elements of Facism, or at least gave them lip service in its New State, though the actual New State was very different from Facism, whereas Facism encoraged the politization of the masses, the New State encouraged their apathy, this is shown in the US Country Study of Portugal at www.countrystudies.us .  Also, don't think all the dictatorships of the time were Facist, many used Facist elements, but Facism is an ideology, not just any anti-Communist dictatorship Jztinfinity 19:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasn't Portugal "sympathetic"? 

message: I know it was "incorporated" into Germany during the war but it certainly did its part in the war effort. Perhaps a special category needs to be created? e.g. "Countries which did not exist politically at the time but whose people directly supported the Axis war effort" (obviously less wordy than that).
Critic9328 02:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Austria be included? 

message: " how Beijing
local government (East Yi Anti-Communist Autonomous Administration)
between other examples."
I've removed this because it doesn't make sense.  If you know what is meant, please re-add the appropriate text. Rich   Farmbrough 16:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nanjing puppet state

message: *Reichskommissariats of Ostland and Ukraine
*White Russian Client State in Soviet Far East Rich   Farmbrough 16:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is entirely incoherent as it stands. No meaning is apparent for most of it. ww 00:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 sections desperately need a cleanup 

message: Is it really fair to have the US listed as a country with good relations with the Axis? The Neutrality Act of '39 favored Britain and France.
I don't think it is fair to have the Spanish Flag on the this page.  Though Spain was certainly sympathetic to the Axis powers, she was officially neutral.
----
A few comments. Since the article is about Axis Powers, and not neutrals (sympathetic or otherwise) there is no need to make any mention of states that were not activly part of the axis. having said that there is no need to exclude mention of countries because they were coerced into joining. We can talk about the circumstances in the article. DJ Clayworth 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA 

message: austria supplied large numbers of military forces and material after it was invaded, it is history.
poland also provided war material, troops and a staging ground for operations after its invasion.
sweden provided war material to the axis throughout the conflict and made no effort to declare against the axis or try to liberate norway or denmark. In fact sweddish gendarme were under orders to arrest allied sabetours aiding the norwegian resistance. also history.
yes , even the channel islands were used against their will as monitering stations throughout their ordeal in Nazi hands. also , unfortunately history. get over it--- all of you
Those are valid points. However asking us to get over it is a bit like asking the US to get over 9/11. And I am pretty sure THAT would make more than a few people upset... 83.72.128.13 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  axis of forgetfulness

message: Not sure whether this is right, but shouldn't the Soviet Union be considered part of the axis, at least until the start of Operation Barbarossa (sp?). 
The Soviet Union allied with Germany from the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and agreed to go to war against Poland. Doesn't that then mean when war was declared on Germany by Britain and France, the USSR would also be affected by it?
Or am I completly missing something?--SSJ Undertaker 13:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Soviet Participance?

message: Soviet Union was co-belligerent with Germany during the invasion of Poland in 1939, and should be included in the list. Western powers actually saw Soviet Union as Germany's ally.
:It was sort of a co-belligerent, but it did not declare war on Poland (and certainly not on the western allies).  Its official position was that, in the face of the supposed collapse of the Polish government, it was restoring order in eastern Poland.  This was (obviously) complete bullshit, but I think it would be problematic, nevertheless to refer to the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent.  Some notice of the Soviet Union's position from 1939-1941 would make sense, though. john k 14:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read what I said a few lines up (Deng 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-belligerence 

message: I hereby propose the following changes to this article:
*Move all "Controlled on/dependent on the Axis" to a new article, Nations invaded by the Axis Powers during WWII for example.
*Find a proper definition of "Axis Power", then limit the countries listed to the matching nations.
*Add one section under the countries defined as Axis Powers to discuss those nations that could be considered Axis Powers, but don't clearly meet the requirements of our definition. It is vital that this section be brief, and provide links to other articles the user can read to clarify the situation.
Superdix 08:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: I edited the article to remove graffiti from the article. People are tagging in the article, just thought I should let everyone know.
KingofRedRoses 10:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Article 

message: What was the level of cooperation between Germany and Japan?  Specifically, how much input did Germany have into the attack on Pearl Harbor? Aepryus 00:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degree of Coordination 

message: Shouldn't Korea be included, in the same way as Austria? Phonemonkey 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Korea (joseon)

message: "In reality, both Ryti and Mannerheim were Nazi-hostile."
At the end of the co-belligerents section of this article, the above sentence is stated.  It seems, without a good source, merely a POV attempt to distance Finland from the Nazis.  I'll agree to put it back in if it can be proved; otherwise, it should stay out.  Picaroon9288 01:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable statement on Finnish leaders 

message: OK, I think we have a consensus of what constitutes an Axis power and how to define each. At the moment the article itself looks fairly good but it basically lacks citation. For any contributors still keeping an eye on this article you should try to remember the sources you used and try to put them in here. Nevertheless I think with citation this could be a winner. --Cuomo111 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finalising Axis Powers 

message: In what way does Denmark belong as part of the Axis? The only reason the Danish government didn't go into exile is that Denmark was under the control of the German Foreign Office and not the German Army as such. Therefor the Danish government was not in danger of being arrested. This changed after 1943 and from there the only legitimate Danish government was de facto the selfproclaimed government in London. If Denmark was member og the Axis then by the same definition was Poland, The Netherlands and all other occupied countries. And such a statement is clearly insulting and obviously wrong. 83.72.128.13 14:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark an Axis power? 

message: Would it be appropriate to change the name of "Kindom of Thailand" to Siam, since it was technically refered to as such till 1949? TchussBitc 12:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thailand technically Siam