Talk:Anti-Comintern Pact

message: I recommend removing the label and separating out the elements relating to the anti-comintern pact for a separate section. Elements discussing actual Anglo-German relations should probably be edited or removed. 
Perusal of the politics of appeasement with regards to British pre-war foreign policy should make it clear to the reader that Britain was pursuing Hitler's support rather than the reverse. Ribbentrop, Goering, and others did look forward to securing a temporary peace with the British ( Mosely, Leonard "On Borrowed Time How World War II Began" Random House Inc, New York, USA 1969;  Manchester, William The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940, Little, Brown and Company, Revised edition (October 28, 1988); Gilbert, Martin Churchill : A Life, Holt Paperbacks (October 15, 1992) ), but it was the policy of Prime Ministers MacDonald and Chamberlain to seduce Germany into a bi-lateral relationship for trade and defense, to the exclusion of the US, France, and Soviet Union.  Up until the invasion of Poland, Britain gave in on every demand that Hitler issued no matter the consequences, loss in prestige, relative economic standing, or continental security implications. 
Yes German policy in the 1930's was to make nice with the Western powers, but only in a strategic sense to cover their drive to the East before driving West. There was no long term interest in a communal friendship with Britain. Hitler offered no concessions beyond a few delays in his program.
Gryffin13 (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Attempts To Improve Anglo-German Relations 

message: I have read through all my history books again, The Oxford Companion to WWII, Liddle Hart, Total War(Calvocoressi,Wint,Pritchard) etc and can find NO mention of it's ressurrection after Japan declared it cancelled because Hitler violated the terms with the "Nazi-Soviet Pact".
Please provide a book source like Boris Slavinsky's(Geoffrey Jukes)2005 "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" which shows photos of the actual signed and stamped documents in their original languages.
If you cannot provide such proof, the statement must be removed according to Wikipedia Guidelines. All the aforementioned historical sources indicate the Anti-Comintern Pact died with the Nazi-Soviet Pact. It is only Allied propaganda that claim there was a link between the Anti-Comintern Pact and the Pact of Steel(which Japan did NOT sign) and the later Tripartite Pact. Unless Wikipedia starts cleaning up these unproven old war-time propaganda claims, it's own claim to being a 'neutral and objective' online encyclopedia is contradicted.
This is why the Oxford Dictionary has removed Japan from the definition of 'Axis Powers of WW2'. When historians requested evidence that such documents existed, none were ever provided, therefore the term is obviously just one of our victor propaganda terms like our ever-changing 'Axis of Evil' today. Used to include Pakistan, then the US President changed his mind and removed it from the definition. Recently as of July 2008, the US President has also changed the definition again to exclude North Korea as of last week. Therefore Wikipedia should cease supporting articles that use propaganda terms as actual historical alliances or pacts when there is no signed documentation agreeing to the name-change.
Speaking of which, The Avalon Project has similarily failed to provide said same evidence in their claim that any 'Axis Pact' ever existed in name. Therefore as Slavinsky/Jukes state, it is only a propagandic myth just like the claim that the Tripartite Pact was ever activated as a military alliance. It wasn't. Not only because Article 3 was never violated, but because of the "Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" conveniently left out by all these biased and prejudiced authors on the topic series on Wikipedia.AthabascaCree (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Evidence of Revival of Anti-Comintern Pact 

message: Proof that the civilian government in Tokyo was not so supportive of this pact as inferred(neither was the Navy), is the fact that the November 1936 Anti-Comintern Pact Japan signed with Germany not done by normal diplomatic means but directly by the military instead.
‘The Japanese War Machine’(Chartwell Books, 1976)P38
“In November 1936 Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany, a move designed to secure Japan against the possibility of Russian intervention. This pact was engineered not by the normal diplomatic channels, but largely by the Japanese Military Attache in Berlin, the Japanese Ambassador being excluded from the discussions.”
These 'little' facts are far more important than the author implies. 
Every history book I read on the Anti-Comintern Pact points out that the Japanese government cancelled it upon Hitler's violations of it's terms in signing the 'Nazi-Soviet Pact'. The omission of these 'little facts' speaks volumes to the bias of the article.AthabascaCree (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect: ' An alliance of fascist states fighting with Germany during *World War II. The term was used in an agreement (October 1936) between Hitler and Mussolini proclaiming the creation of a Rome–Berlin ‘axis round which all European states can also assemble’. Japan joined the coalition on signing the .. '  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.216.187 (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divided Support of Anti-Comintern Pact 

message: The Comintern was something of a propaganda bogeyman, and was not the real purpose or target of the treaty. AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Comintern was *real* enemy. This pact was anti-communism reaction against 7th Congress of the Comintern. --182.168.50.171 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW our-side documents said such like "In 7th Congress of the Comintern, Comintern decided to Germany and Japan as targets of communizing.". but I don't know this is real or fake. the information might came via White Russians in Manchukuo. When I saw old Great Purge-related soviet-side documents (*1), I thought that the information might be created by Russian Trotskyists and Right-Wings line. but I'm not sure.*1 『反ソヴィエト「右翼トロッキー派ブロック」の公判記録』 , English version (not checked but same title) is here: "REPORT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ANTI SOVIET BLOC OF RIGHTS AND TROTSKYITES" --182.168.50.171 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

text:  I found details of the 7th Congress of the Comintern in a book of "Analyzes of Manchurian communist bandit" (Japanese) which was published by Manchukuo military government advisory division. information of the book seems basically truth.  --218.110.202.216 (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: In reality...

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Comintern Pact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527155258/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri2.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri2.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121212104950/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri3.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article presently makes several statements about the Tripartite pact that aren't supported by the references an/or reflect only a partial POV of the pact. Specifically the idea that it became the primary document of the Axis replacing the Anti-Comintern pact does not appear to be uncontroversial. It is also not true that the Tripartite pact "supplanted" the ACP - the ACP remained on the books and was renewed. In reality the Tripartite pact is also described as having become essentially a dead letter by late 1941 by historians (e.g., by Paul W. Schroeder in "The Axis alliance and Japanese-American relations, 1941"). The revivification of the Anti-Comintern pact in '42 is a function of this. At the very least we should not state in the voice of Wiki that this was the case. FOARP (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issues