Talk:Axis powers/Archive 2

message: Pavelić's so-called "Indepedent State of Croatia" is no different than
Nedić's "Serbian Government of National Salvation."  They were both puppet regimes created by Germany.  To label Croatia as an Axis collaborator without also labeling Serbia as such is not only erroneous, it is offensive, akin to selective Holocaust denial.
The Kingdom of Yugoslavia, its government dominated by Serbs, signed the Tripartite Pact with Hitler, and when Yugoslavia was dissolved following the German occupation, General Nedić's Serbian government reaffirmed the Pact.
General Nedić's government was fully functional, controlled its own military and police forces, and enjoyed substantial popular support.  Its Serbian Volunteer Corps wore the uniform of the Royal Yugoslav Army:  
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=90
Moreover, Nedić's Serbia enthusiasitically supported the Holocaust and was the first European nation to be declared "free of Jews."
http://balkan-studies.blogspot.com/2006/06/serbia-carried-holocaust-against-jews.html
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosta/licnosti/cohen.5.html
I do not deny that Croat nationalists cooperated with Germany, but Serbia was no less a collaborator than Croatia.  In fact, Serb tyranny is largely to blame for Croat cooperation with the Germans.
:: I do not see how the Holocaust is relevant to the issue at hand.  Your other points may be relevant.TchussBitc 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Croatia and Serbia

message: I am Grungoria.
I agree with these basic classifications:  Major Axis Power, Minor Axis Power, Axis Co-Belligerent, Axis Collaborator and Axis Puppet.
White Guard objects to listing the puppet regimes in Norway, Serbia and Greece as Axis Puppets.  He makes the strange argument that these puppet regimes should not be listed because they were created by the Germans.  Well, duh!  That is the very definition of a puppet.
White Guard objects to the listing of Denmark as an Axis collaborator.  He makes the strange argument that Denmark's collaboration should be ignored because Denmark was a weak country that was not in a position to resist.  This, again, is a stupid argument.  Luxemborg and Holland were weak countries in no position to resist, but resist they did.  They declared war, they fought until their countries were overrun, and then they formed governments-in-exile in London to continue the war.
Denmark collaborated.  Denmark accepted Hitler's offer of "protection" and permitted itself to be occupied without resistance.  Denmark never declared war or formed a government-in-exile.  Denmark's lawful government remained in Denmark, under German protection ("protectorate government").  Denmark assisted and cooperated with the German occupation forces, placing its police and military forces at Germany's disposal.  Denmark coordinated its foreign policy with Germany, breaking relations with Germany's enemies and signing the Anti-Comintern Treaty of 1941 with Germany, Italy, Japan and the other Axis powers.  Denmark even provided torpedo boats to the German Navy, not to mention Danish volunteers for the Waffen SS.  The Danes may be fine people who did not "like" collaborating with Germany, but this is an encyclopedia of facts and collaborate Denmark did!
White Guard objects to the listing of Spain as an Axis collaborator.  He gives no reason for this ridiculous objection.  Spain clearly collaborated with the Axis.  Beginning in 1940, Generalissmo Franco publicly and repeatedly declared Spain to be a nonbelligerent member of the Axis.  In 1941, he dropped the nonbelligerence, sending the Blue Division of 20,000 Spanish volunteers to fight on Germany's Eastern Front.
White Guard objects to the listing of Croatia as a minor Axis power, saying that it should instead be listed as an Axis puppet.  Here there is room for reasoned disagreement.  Unlike the puppet regimes of Norway, Serbia and Greece which enjoyed virtually no public support and were not recognized even by other Axis powers, the Croat state achieved a degree of legitimacy.  The Croat government enjoyed public support and achieved international recognition.  I believe that Croatia should be listed in the same category with Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria, not the puppet regimes.
White Guard suggests that Sweden and Switzerland be listed as Axis collaborators because of their trade relations with Germany.  I disagree in both instances.  Although Sweden did collaborate by secretly permitting transit to German troops through Swedish territory, neither collaborated to the extent of Vichy France, Spain or Denmark, which were open in their support of German foreign policy.
White Guard suggests that the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia should be listed as a puppet state.  Germany viewed the Protectorate as a part of Greater Germany in the process of being Germanified, not as a separate country, but I would not object to listing it with Serbia, Greece and Norway if it advances the completion of the article.
REPLY TO THE ABOVE.
It's obvious to me now that you are not a native English speaker because you have clearly misunderstood some of the points I have been making.  Anyway, let me clarify the issues.
 
SHADOW STATES.  I do not object to the inclusion of the collaborators in Norway, Serbia and Greece because they were patronised by the Germans, but because they had no support or authority, and cannot be considered as 'governments' in any meaningful sense whatsoever.  I tried to make this point in relation to Quisling, when I said that his 'state' was little bigger than the room in which he sat; or, it might be better said, no bigger than his imagination. 
DENMARK.  I have nothing to add to the points made on this question  by MartinDK below, other than to say on this issue your view is probably unique, by this I mean the only one of its kind. 
SPAIN.  Spain should not be included in this article in any form whatsoever because it was not a member, nor a creation, of the Axis.  It was officially neutral, whatever sympathies Franco expressed.  The Blue Division was a formation of volunteers, oficially withdrawn from Russia in 1943 after allied objections.  It's presence in Russia was a minimal return for the millions of marks Spain owed to Germany for assistance during the Civil War; but when Hitler asked for a more direct contribution to the war-particularly with regard to an Axis assault on Gibralter-Franco refused.
CROATIA.  Croatia may have been recognised 'internationally' by the Axis and its associates-as was Slovakia; but it was still a puppet state.  It may have enjoyed a degree of internal support, but I have a higher opinioion of the Croat people than to believe that they all identified with the foul Ustase movement.
SWITZERLAND AND SWEDEN.  With regard to these countries the point I was making seems to have escaped you altogether.  I was being deliberately ironic-a form of satire-, not seriously suggesting that they should be listed as Axis collaborators; but by your reasoning they might very well be.  It was not trade relations I was highlighting with relation to Switzerland but the black-out of Swiss cities, to prevent allied bombers using the country to pinpoint targets in Germany and Italy.  This was indeed a form of collaboration; but one given under duress.
BOHEMIA AND MORAVIA.  Again my point has escaped you.  I was not seriously suggesting the inclusion of the Protectorate as a collaborator or Axis state; but once more by your estimation it could have been: indeed much more so than either Denmark or Norway.  It was, incidentally, not part of Grossdeutschland (how could Slavs be Germanised?) but a separate political formation with a native government under the German Protector.
Finally, on a point of advice, you really need to clarify some of your thinking on this matter.  I am not being unkind, but your rather eccentric views risk robbing the issue of all sense and meaning.
White Guard 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate with White Guard

message: it needs to replace the noraml japan flag, correct flag viewed here:http://voiceoftaiwan.tripod.com/imperial_japan.gif
:: That is the naval ensign for Japan during the war.  If you look at the main page of this article, you will see a picture of the signing of the Triparite Pact and you will see the correct Japanese flag.  That to me should end the debate.TchussBitc 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Again, Imperial Japan flag

message: I think this section needs major revamping.  For instance, Luxembourg can be found in here.  I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider Luxembourg a member of the Axis.  Sure Luxembourg was annexed, but annexation isn't enough to include a  nation into the Axis.
It also appears that nations that where occupied by Axis members who supplied voluneteers are also considered to be members of the Axis.  This is not right.  For instance Belgians did fight for Hitler but, the Belgium government did go into exile and this should rightfully eliminate Belgium from this page.  If people do not agree with me, then the Baltic nations such as Estonia and Lativa should be considered as members who where "Dependent on (or controlled by) the Axis".  
Why is the Russo-Japanese client state in Soviet Far East included in this article.  As far as I remember, this never existed and was a mere plan for Japanese intentions.  This shouldn't be included in the article.  We need to delete that as well.  
What I propse is you eliminate the title.  Change the title to "Axis Puppet States" and eliminate several of the countries in the listed article.  There appears to be no logical reasoning for Belgium and Luxembourg to be included.  Also, I would include Burma in this section as well.  Burma National Army
:I think this page is a good example of what happens when you try to cover too much in one article. It tends to become nonsens. If we put your suggestion to a vote I will support it. -- MartinDK 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand why you made the edits. In the case of Luxembourg it was an obvious mistake to include it in the article in the first place. In such situations it should be ok to take action without waiting for others to realize the mistake as well.
I suggest an if not complete then thorough rewrite of the introduction. Unless we split the article into two it should be aimed directly at the core of the subject. As it is now it is at best highly speculative and at worst misleading. Wikipedia whould be about facts and not speculative theories and redefinition of terms like Axis Powers. MartinDK 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should move along with the "Axis Puppet State" section.  The current title doesn't accurately potray what they where, and that was puppet states.  Now, the Russian client states appear to be more of a civil adminstration that wasn't really organized like a national government (albeit a puppet one).  I have to admit, I am not really educated on the Russian collaborators.  Is there even a difference between a client state and a puppet state?  Anyone else care to interject?TchussBitc 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should rename it to "Axis Puppet State". I think we need to be careful though as Finland was not a puppet state but a state with its own non-facist reasons for attacking Russia. A client state is a state that through its dependance acts in accordance with the wishes of Moscow. For many years Finland could to a large extend be considered a client state since it was unable to join Nato and was largely dependant on trade to Russia. A puppet state is a a state where the government has been directly installed by Moscow. DDR, Belarus, Ukraine were good examples of puppet states. MartinDK 16:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Dependent on (or controlled by) the Axis 

message: Grungoria says -- see above and below --
Major Axis Powers
Germany
Italy
Japan
Minor Axis Powers
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Yugoslavia
Croatia
Axis Co-Belligerents
Thailand
Finland
Axis Collaborators
Vichy France
Spain
Denmark
German Puppet States
Norway (Quisling)
Greece (Rallis)
Serbia (Nedic)
Italian Puppet State
Albania (personal union)
Japanese Puppet States
Manchuria (Manchuko)
Mongolia (Mengiang)
China (Nanking regime)
Phillipines (Second Republic)
Burma
India (Free India)
Thank you for your consideration.  I am Grungoria.
_____________________________________________________________________________
It seems as if most people are in agreement that this page needs major work.  Here is what I think should happen.
Major Powers
*Germany
*Italy
*Japan
Minor Powers
*Hungary
*Romania
*Bulgaria
Axis Puppets
*Slovakia 
*Croatia
*Manchuko 
*Mengiang
Co-Belligerents
*Finland (meets definition of, the facts are there)
*Thailand 
Now, on to the hard part.  What to do with the Provisional Government of Free India?  If this is included anywhere on the page, then the Burmese National Army should as well.  Yugoslavia meets the definition of an Axis Power, but was quickly overthrown.  Does that need to be added?
Vichy France.  Vichy France was the whipping boy of the Axis.  Land grabs and what not.  I don't know whether to classify Vichy as a puppet since they did have a good deal of control with their own foreign affairs, unlike other puppets.  What does everyone else think?   TchussBitc 04:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Burmese National Army was a puppet government installed by Japan so by definition it belongs under Axis Puppets. The Provisional Government of Free India is harder. Its main purpose was to get rid of the English and to do that it took advantage of the situation. Very much like Finland did with Germany to take advantage of the situation in the was against The Soviet Union. So I think that one belongs under Co-Belligerents though I am still a bit unsure if I have understood the situation in India correct. Was it de facto installed by Japan or did it rise to power on its own? If Japan was de facto responsible for installing it it belongs under puppets and not Co-Belligerents. The same applies to the governemnt of Yugoslavia. Vichy France was clearly an ally of the Axis even if it didn't have general support in the population. Besides all that I agree with your proposal and as soon as I am sure we are in agreement I will change the article accordingly. What remains after that is a general rewrite of some portions of the article such as the introduction which I think is a bit weak. MartinDK 12:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This page continues to be a mess. People keep adding more or less relevant information without consulting this discussion. The dispute tag was also removed for whatever reason. Either we decide to reorganize and tidy it up or it will become increasingly messy and inaccurate. The Hungary part even has sources listed in the middle of the article now! MartinDK 18:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I think you are right.  This article is trying to do too much.  If anything, a link should be provided on the article for WW2 co-belligerents (if it exists)TchussBitc 14:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Major Change 

message: The description of the political boundries given here of Greater Germany is wrong.  By 1943 the actual territory of the Reich, directly subordinate, that is, to the Reich government, included, besides the German territory within the boundries of 1937, Austria, the Sudetenland, Memelland, Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, Danzig, parts of central and eastern Poland, Slovenia, parts of northern Italy, and the Belgian territory of Eupen-Malmedy.  It did not include the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, the General-Government of Poland, Belarus or the Baltic States, all separately and distinctly administered.
White Guard 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grossdeutschland? 

message: I need some clarification about some points made in relation to Denmark.  SS volunteers were recruited by the Nazis in all lands under occupation, with or without the co-operation of the local authorities.  The wording here suggests that the Danish government actively recruited on behalf of the SS.  Can this be true? I suspect not.  But more important why is Denmark included in a section about membership of the Axis? Denmark, Spain, France, Finland and Thailand should all be removed.  None of these countries were Axis powers.
White Guard 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them once before... You see some people who like to contribute to this article don't bother to look at the discussion first. Our government did not recruit people to the SS. Those who joined the SS were a) a small and completely insignificant number and b) doing so at their own free will and against the wishes of the Danish government and people. MartinDK 11:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark-clarification please. 

message: Grungoria says -- STOP REMOVING GERMAN PUPPET STATES FROM THE LIST OF GERMAN PUPPET STATES.  The Vidkun Quisling regime of Norway was a German puppet state; in fact, because of the Vidkun Quisling regime, his name "quisling" has entered the English language as a word meaning "puppet."  Likewise, the Ioannis Rallis regime in Greece, with its Security Battalions, and the Milan Nedić regime in Serbia, with its Serbian Volunteer Corps were German puppet states.  
VICHY FRANCE SHOULD BE LISTED AS AN AXIS COLLABORATOR, NOT A GERMAN PUPPET STATE.  Vichy France was not created by Germany, as were the puppet regimes of Quisling, Rallis and Nedic.  Vichy France, officially called the French State, was the lawful successor to the Third Republic and recognized as such by the international community, including the United States.  There is no question that Vichy France collaborated with the Axis, breaking diplomatic relations with Great Britain, sigining the Anti-Comintern Pact with Hiter and Mussolini, and resisting the Allied landings in North Africa (inflicting over 1,000 American casulaties!).
SPAIN SHOULD BE LISTED AS AN AXIS COLLABORATOR, NOT A GERMAN PUPPET.  Although Franco won the Spanish Civil War with the military support of Hitler and Mussolini, his regime was not created by Germany or Italy.  However, Spain was clearly an Axis collaborator.  Franco repeatedly and publicly declared Spain a "nonbelligerent member" of the Axis.  Franco was a signer of the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1941 and dispatched the "Blue Division" of over 20,000 Spanish volunteers to fight the Soviet Union on Germany's Eastern Front.  Spain was denied membership in the United Nations because of its collaboration with the Axis.    
DENMARK SHOULD BE LISTED AS AN AXIS COLLABORATOR, NOT A GERMAN PUPPET STATE.  King Christian willingly accepted German military occupation, and his "Protectorate Government" clearly collaborated with the Axis, signing the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1941 and breaking diplomatic relations with the Allied Powers of Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States.  Unlike Norway, whose lawful government fled to England and continued to operate in exile(requiring the Germans to create a puppet regime under Quisling), the lawful government of Denmark remained in Denmark and collaborated with the Germans.
CROATIA SHOULD BE LISTED AS A MINOR AXIS POWER, NOT A GERMAN PUPPET STATE.  Although formed from Yugosolovia after it had been occupied by Germany, Croatia achieved a degree of international recognition not obtained by the puppet regimes of Quisling, Rallis and Nedic in Norway, Greece and Serbia.  Croatia was a signer of both the Tripartite Pact and the Anti-Comintern Pact.
NO COUNTRY TODAY IS PROUD OF ITS MEMBERSHIP IN OR COLLABORATION WITH THE AXIS, BUT THAT IS NO EXCUSE FOR VANDALIZING THIS ARTICLE BY DELETING PUPPET AND COLLABORATOR STATES.
Thank you for your consideration.  I am Grungoria.
______________________________________________________________________________
I have removed the reference (headings only) to the Quisling 'government' in Norway and the 'National Salvation government' in Serbia as German puppet states.  Both of these authorities had virtually no authority; Norway remained under the supreme control of  Reichskommisar Josef Terboven and Serbia under German military rule.  If we start to include such shadowy structures we might as well incorporate Anton Mussert and the Dutch National Socialists, the civilian authorities in the British Channel Islands, and the various national authorities established in conquered Russian territory; and there was even a Greek government in Athens.  
I have to say also that I have serious objections to the inclusion of Vichy France as a German puppet state.  The Germans at no point appointed the governments of France; and Marshal Petain was recognised as French head of state by the United States-and other-as late as the winter of 1942, a year after she entered the war.  I want to remove this inclusion of Vichy, but will defer the matter until others have had a chance to consider my objection.
We really have to get down to a core definition of the Axis, or risk abandoning this page to all sorts of eccentrics.
White Guard 23:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vichy France was not a puppet. It was not installed by Germany. Instead it rose to power by itself and should be classified as an ally of the Axis. I have pointed this out earlier but didn't make the relevant edit since I knew that such an edit would require further discussion. I completely agree with your edits... either we delete such governments or the article will become messy again. MartinDK 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Since no one has yet voice objection to this, Spain cannot possibly be called a puppet state or a collaborator either. Str1977 (smile back) 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I was only looking at this section. Unfortunately sometimes reasoning doesn't stop the debate. Str1977 (smile back) 23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   German Puppet States 

message: Will no-one tell me what she sings
Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow,
For old, unhappy, far off things,
And battles long ago.
I am becoming ever more aware that a proxy war is creeping into these pages, largely, I suspect, coming from the former Yugoslavia, about the character and status of the war-time 'states' of Serbia and Croatia.  Have a look at the rather suspect page on Nedić's Serbia and some of the observations above about Croatia.  These issues clearly carry a lot of residual bitterness, pushed forward by some very partisan views.
White Guard 05:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battles long ago