Talk:Tripartite Pact

message: : The article remains lacking in objectivity and neutrality of reporting. 
:a) The omission of "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" is an blatant sign of bias.
:b) The omission of the "Pact of Steel" which Japan refused to join is another sign of bias.
:c) The omission of the proven fact that the USSR was indeed invited to join the "Tripartite Pact" to make it "The Pact of Four" as Japan, Italy and the USSR wanted, took the negotiations seriously, and is, again, an obvious sign of prejudicial reporting.
:d) As pointed out on the "Axis" pages as well, there has been NO authenticated original signed document in member languages proving the existance of any Pact joining Japan to Germany and Italy title "Axis". 
:e) The claim that the "Tripartite Pact" was the proper name of the "Axis Pact" was also disproved.
:f) If the rule is supposed to be that if you cannot provide evidence of the actual document's existance, then it can not be used as a stated objective and neutral fact in the article. as those using Slavinsky who's book shows actual photographs of the signed documents in appropriate languages, that it should not be stated as evidence in fact in this article. 
:g) The article continues its bias by continuing to claim the "Tripartite Pact" supplemented the "Anti-Comintern Pact" when it was proven by sourced evidence that Tokyo dissolved the "Anti-Comintern Pact" with Germany's signing of the "Nazi-Soviet Pact" and never signed the "Pact of Steel" therefore cannot possibly have 'supplemented' eachother.
:The article remains obviously biased and prejudiced retaining statements unproven even disproven not to mention major omission of Soviet invitation and "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" which has been proven.TheBalderdasher (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tavy, 
Like only a couple of others not deleted here, I also taught history, researched before that, now retired, lecturing still and researching just for my own interest anymore, sad huh? 
Sadly whomever(i was told only the author or wikipedia editor could), deleted pages of we teacher's/researcher's posts,
someone had started what I thought was a brilliant adaptation specifically for such online forums,
where even i would rather go to the library or sneak a peek in a bookstore rather than buy every book sourced here 
to prove to myself that the poster wasn't either making up the book and author, 
or wasn't misquoting or 'selectively quoting' out of context,
so he or she started actually listing the chapter, page and paragraph(so I thought must be a teacher)
but outright quoting the entire paragraph word for word to prove they weren't taking it out of context
(which my secretary felt made them a librarian), either way, it was, in my opinion, 
the best way for people without those books to go the the libraries or bookstores and confirm for themselves 
without having to take out a mortgage to buy them all;)
so frustrating the author or wikipedia editor? deleted them all.
However, i did find an old print-out from those days, the best i can do for you is type out a dozen or so of the sources me and others listed, 
hope it helps.
I now recall receiving a message here all those years ago, telling me I couldn't use non-English books/authors as sources,
so forgive me if i let one slip by
i am no linguist, but if there wasn't an english translation, our linguist departments would help translate for us,
though i would still argue it's wrong to use only books written in the victor language for the victor market
and claim your argument 'impartial' or 'factual'
(But in the end, I agree with the others I notice no longer participate in wikipedia, if wikipedia isn't going to delete unproven or proven wrong information
and stop authors from deleting those proving them wrong
then it is the joke Jon Daily and Stephen Colbert make it out to be
so sad, we had such high hopes for these, and so many schoolbooks remain so far behind the times)''
"The Oxford Companion to WWII", 1995-2005, Oxford and New York
"Total War" The Causes and Courses of The Second World War, Calvocoressi, Wint and Pritchard, 2nd Ed 1995, Penguin Books(though you can tell some of the authors' missionary/anglo/american bias, alot of lies revealed)
"Myths and Legends of the Second World War" James Hayward, Sutton, 2004
"The Art of War in World History: From Antiquity to the Nuclear Age" Chaliand, 1994, California
"The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945", John Toland, 2003(Pulitzer Prize editions always cost more, try to find cheaper edition)
"Liddel Hart's History of the Second World War", Pan Books, 1979
"Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army", Merion and Susie Harries, Random House, 1991(admittedly a more culture gender focus, yet again, some lies revealed)
"But Not in Shame: the six months after pearl harbor", Toland, Random House, 1961
"The Winter War: The Soviet Attack on Finland 1939-1940", Engle & Paananen, Stackpole Books, 1992
"Infamy: Pearl Harbour and Its Aftermath", Toland, Berkley, 1982(I have the more shocking re-edited version published after the Secrecy Act Records release of 1993, co-authored by the head of the OSS at the time if I recall correctly, but not here, I remember it was sold out so long I had to buy my copy from a library;)
"How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: the fatal errors that led to the nazi defeat", Bevin Alexander, Three Rivers Press New York, 2000
"Atlas of World History", Oxford, Institute of Historical Research, University of London, 2002
"Atlas of Military Strategy", Chandler, Arms and Armour Press, London, Melbourne, 1980
"Korea's Place in the Sun", Cumings, W.W. Norton & Company, 2005
"Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII", Cornwell, Viking, 1999
"The Japanese War Machine", Mayer, Chartwell, 1989
"Japan: A reinterpretation", Patrick Smith, Harper Collins, 1997
"Raising the Red Banner: the pictorial history of stalin's fleet 1920-1945", Yakubov & Worth, 1998 
"Third Reich Victorious: alternate decisions of world war ii", Tsouras, Ballantine, 2002
"Rising Sun Victorious: an alternate history of the pacific war"(note how he uses the Japanese, not our term)...it could have happened and nearly did", Tsouras, Ballantine, 2007
"Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters" Richard A. Clarke, Harper Collins, 2008
"The Forgotten War: Volume Two", Cohen, PH, 1990
"After the Reich: the brutal history of the allied occupation", MacDonogh, Basic Books, 2007
"The Allied Occupation of Japan", Eiji, Continuum, 2003
"Disaster at D-Day", Tsouras, GMP, 2004
"If the Allies Had Fallen", Showalter & Deutsch, 2010(shockingly American-biased, even Britain mal-represented, at least it shows how even hand-picked US-biased authors in the same book can make conflicting statements, it reads eerily like an assignment we got to break up into groups of 10 and write a biased history of any conflict from one nation's point of view using sources).
"Military Errors of World War Two", Macksey, Casswell Military, 1998
"Military Intelligence Blunders and Cover-Ups", Wilson, Robinson, 2004
"The Japanese-Soviet Friendship Neutrality Pact", Slavinsky/, 2005, (yes, the English translation, i suggest you try to find it in a library, extremely expensive, someone stole my 1st copy)
"Intelligence in War", Keegan, Vintage, 2002
"Day of Deceipt: the truth about FDR and pearl Harbor", Stinnet, FP, 2000
"The Battle for History", Keegan, Vintage, 2005
TheBalderdasher (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Remains Biased and Prejudiced 

message: Just thought that an editor might like to know, the wikisource text article has been deleted, so the link at the bottom of the top infobox on the left should be deleted or changed to the right link. 
I did not want to do this as it may have been flagged as vandalism, since the link is still blue, but if an editor could take this away or change it to avoid confusion, I would be grateful. Thanks --84.253.60.142 (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisource Original Text 

message: For those of you who care, the old sourced debates you complain missing are in the 'archives'.
But that only goes to prove that none of you should bother with Wikipedia anymore.
It doesn't matter how well you source your evidence for corrections of articles here, nothing changes.
Stop wasting your time guys. 
Have just returned from school trip through Asia again. Hope to see y'all somewhere more reliable. Cheers all.DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Debates in Archives 

message: Why did Nazi Germany ally itself with two countries (Italy and Japan) that weren't part of the "master race"?
And how did they explain that to their citizens? 75.36.164.103 (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't answer your question re: Japan, except to say that getting Japan to attack the considerable holdings of the Western Powers in East Asia had been German policy since Arthur Zimmerman proposed it in 1917. As to Italy, Hitler mentioned it in Mein Kampf as one of the two European powers that Germany should try to enlist as an ally in the coming war (the other one was England). 24.196.64.186 (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about Japan from a ww2 knowledge n00b

message: Can anyone explain why Manchukuo was added to the list of Axis Pact signatories? I have looked and not found any evidence that Manchukuo ever signed the treaty (many Axis powers did not, such as Finland, Thailand, Vichy France and China-Nanjing). 69.128.40.14 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchukuo? 

message: I thought about re-reverting to the the version of the article that omitted this sentence: "Modern day Croatia is related to this country only by name and not it's legal predecessor." The same could be said of many of the Axis signatories; why emphasize it here? It's unnecessary and smacks of NPOV. However, I don't want to start an edit war, and suggest we discuss this first. --Yaush (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatia 

message: What happened after the :de:Regierung Badoglio came to power ? 
Did they terminate the Tr. pact formally ? 
--Neun-x (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy summer 1943  

message: I myself never understood why it was still called "tripartite" after November 1940. It was blatantly clear that membership was fluid, that also other countries could join, so why keep reffering to it as a pact between 3 countries?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.129.22 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Germany, Italy and Japan were the only countries that counted as major powers. (81.159.7.90 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tripartite"? 

message: ""Later that day, Ribbentrop promised Filov that after the fall of Greece, Bulgaria would obtain an Adriatic coastline between the Struma and Maritsa rivers.[8]""
Plain ignorance, the Struma and Maritsa fall into the Aegean Sea  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.6.193 (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Struma and Maritsa 

message: It's important to be aware that "the Axis" both 1) wasn't a formal alliance as such and, 2) pre-existed the Tripartite Pact (otherwise we wouldn't have separate articles on The Axis and the Tripartite Pact). All the countries that signed the Tripartite Pact are generally considered to have been Axis countries, but other countries that did not sign it are generally considered to have been part of the Axis (albeit with various caveats). To see that this is so please consider the following sources:
:*The OED definition of the Axis is "the alliance of Germany and Italy formed before and during the Second World War, later extended to include Japan and other countries". That is, the OED definition is clearly not tied to the Tripartite Pact but instead is about countries that were aligned with Germany, Italy, and Japan before and during WW2. 
:*Cambridge dictionary gives a definition of "the Axis" as "the countries, including Germany, Italy, and Japan, that fought against the Allies in the Second World War". The defining characteristic here is fighting against the Allies.
:*Merriam-Webster of "The Axis" gives "of or relating to the three powers Germany, Italy, and Japan engaged against the Allied nations in World War II". This defines the Axis as being the three most powerful three countries fighting against the Allies and things related to them.   
:*This scholarly article on peace with "Italy and the Minor Axis Powers" freely refers to Finland (not a Tripartite Pact signatory) as an Axis power alongside other countries that did sign the treaty.
:*"The A to Z of U.S. Diplomacy from World War I through World War II" by Martin Folly and Niall Palmer, p.21, defines the Axis Powers as "the name commonly given to the cooperation of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy .... it was supplemented by the Anti-Comintern Pact between Germany and Japan". Again the Tripartite Pact is not describes as being essential, just part of the development of relations between the three.  
:*This book on occupations carried out by the European Axis written in 1944 includes a list of European Axis countries carrying out occupations, which, in a footnote, explicitly refers to Finland but says it is not included as "The role of Finland as an occupant [is] insignificant", which is to say that the author considered Finland to be an Axis country despite not having signed the Tripartite Pact, they just don't list them because they aren't occupying a lot of territory.
:*This Foreign Affairs article from 1941 on the blocking of funds to the Axis by the US lists Finland amongst "German-controlled" countries and as part of the Axis. The Tripartite pact is not seen as a requirement to be part of the Axis.
:*"Germany and the Axis Powers from Coalition to Collapse" by R.L. DiNardo appears to list Finland as a member of the Axis, at least judging by this book review (which concurs with their inclusion). Again, signing of the Tripartite pact is not seen as essential. 
:*Michael Jonas's essay in "Finland in World War II: History, Memory, Interpretations" describes the relationship between Helsinki and Berlin as "the most effective in the Axis coalition". Clearly the author considers Finland to have been part of the Axis regardless of whether they signed the Tripartite Pact.
:*World War II: The Eastern Front 1941-1945 by Geoffrey Jukes on p.52 describes Finland as "The only democracy to join the Axis". Signing the Tripartite again not seen as conclusive of Axis membership or not.
The above focuses especially on Finland because this is typically the example considered, but it could just as easily be Thailand (didn't sign the TP but is typically considered to have been Axis) or the various Japanese puppet states. "The Axis" was a web of various agreements, only one of which was the TP. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great!  Now, can you please add a new section to the main entry that offers this explanation, as well as a "See further" cross-reference? - Aboudaqn (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that seems to be mostly correct, although I am only slightly familiar with this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship between this agreement and "The Axis"

message: The Tripartite Pact was directed primarily at the United States. Its practical effects were limited since the Italo-German and Japanese operational theatres were on opposite sides of the world, and the high contracting powers had disparate strategic interests. As such the Axis was only ever a loose alliance. Its defensive clauses were never invoked, and signing the agreement did not oblige its signatories to fight a common war per se.
I see the following problems:
#Were these sources say that the Pact was directed primarily at the United States? Was it? 
#This is mostly known as an offensive, not defensive pact.
#The cited source is actually about the responsibility of Finland. Why it is here?
#This does not belong to the lead because this is not a summary of anything on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable text

message: — Assignment last updated by Eklies (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: German History, 1900-1945