![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Shouldnt the japanese imperial flag be used as the flag of japan for ww2?
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)
In my opinion, the definition of an axis power is one who wanted to take over the world, or other territories, but were supressed and their drive to annex new territories was ended. The Nazis in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, and the Japanese all wanted to take over the world, or other territories.--Vreddy92 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Vreddy, while that applies to major powers like the ones you stated, there were a handful of states that joined due to ideological similarities, promises of money, power, ancestral land, or just continued existance, or like Germany really, because of the content of the Treaty of Versailles, or because they were old allies (Austria-Hungary in WWI to Austria being annexed and Hungary as an Axis Power in WWII for example). So while for the most part the members were pretty cut and dry, there are exceptions to keep in mind, which is the reason I think this is still being disputed. Galactor213 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I made the brief mention of His Imperial Majesty Shōwa Tennō a little fairer to him. I put in a "next to" purely for political correctness, as I thought others might disagree, and don't personally think he had any power in the matter at all. So I approve of John-1107's edit, though it might have to be changed.
elvenscout742 2 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
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)
Sorry, Cimon, I can't accept that: "misrepresented" isn't appropriate - I've said quite clearly that it wasn't a member, but for the Soviets and British to consider it an "Axis power" in 1941-44 wasn't misrepresentation, just a particular broad usage (just as the US is often spoken of as one of the WWI Allies, though it wasn't allied to anyone). What precise relationship Finland upheld is also at issue. For the sake of conciliation I removed the description "ally" elsewehere (only to have this thrown at me as "evidence" that I must previously have lied). I've left in Finland's self-characterisation here without adverse comment. I'm trying not to have the other dispute overspill here where it's quite unncessary. Graculus 13:47, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
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)
Why Finland could be considered as a german ally. From 1941 and not only from 1944, the ryti-rippentrop agreement: I suggest someone should read that: http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/finland/summary.html German troops operated from finnish soil from the beginning of Barbarossa (actually it was 25 June 1941). They did that with finnish permission and the Finnish joined the attack shortly thereafter. So, it is reasonly to say that there was a coalition of some sort against that common enemy. That should be reflected. I dont know why it is alway reverted.
User:217.232.107.243 15:36, 31 Jan 2005
co-belligerence? Whats that anyway. According to the wikipedia article it could also be just a be a euphemism. If the above sentence is wrong, why did you delete also the other sentences i wrote?
Maybe you should look at these page: Co-belligerence#Finland's co-belligerence as an euphemism
Thats what i wrote. So maybe you should delete it there as well?
--User:Holger1076 21:44, 31 Jan 2005
I have a hard time understanding what any of the discussion of rationale has to do with whether Finland was an ally or co-belliegerent or anything else. While I am sensitive to those who want to make certain people understand that German-Finnish cooperation was not a result of shared ideology, as may be the case with Italo-German relations, but instead a matter of practicality in which the hand of Finland was essentially forced by the events around it and positions of much larger powers, it doesn't change whether or not Finland was or as not an ally of Germany at some point. The discussion should not revolve on whether or not Finland had to or was justified to cooperate with Germany. For an encyclopedia, it must revolve around a simple discussion on whether Finland fit the prerequisites to meet the definition of an ally. If so, then it is not only appropriate, but a requirement that it be mentioned that it meets those criterion in any article addressing the matter. If it does not, then it is not appropriate to refer to Finland as an ally of Germany or the Axis. The definition of ally is given as one that is allied to another, especially by treaty (note that such treaty is not prerequisite), or one in helpful association with another. There is no question that there was helpful association between Finland and Germany during a period of World War II. Did that association extend to military matters, which the use of the term ally would indicate when used in an article referring to the war? That may be a matter of some debate, although there is no doubt that there was some level of military coordination between the two. Finland did not join the Tripartite Pact, and so it is probably incorrect to refer to Finland as an Axis Power, but if cooperation was to a certain extent, then it would be appropriate to refer to it as an ally of Germany and hence the Axis Powers, at least during the period of June 26, 1941 to September 4, 1944. Joshbaumgartner 04:06, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
2. Sweden was sort of an Axis Powerdue to the Winter War and various other reasons. 3. Hitler and the Nazis probably liked Finns better than, say, Italians because Finns are obviosly northern European. Cameron Nedland 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Toumas, I would appreciate if you could explain to me how I 'alleged in the article Participants in World War II that Finland should have been a co-belligerent of the Axis Powers and not of the Third Reich.', as you stated in your last edit.
Looking at the article, my edit of the Finland section was as such:
Note that it has been edited since by others (look in the history to find what I wrote). I don't want to make a big deal of this, but you brought it up as an indication that I lacked credibility. Now there is one error in my edit: it was 1944 that the Soviets truly went on the offensive against Finland and brought them to the table. But I certainly didn't even write the word ally or co-belligerent in my edit, but instead just laid out what happens and let the reader determine what they should be considered (isn't that what one is supposed to do in this work?). I also did not mention Finland in the Axis section, even so far as cooperating with them might warrant such mention.
If you are going to call my credibility into question, please do so on something I actually wrote, please! Or am I missing something in my edit above that shows Finland in an unfair light? I certainly hope that you are not merely attacking me on the basis of my not taking a line wholly consistent with yours.
Joshbaumgartner 19:52, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
Wouldn't the Soviet Union be considered an Axis power as well from 1939-41? Like Finland, it was first a co-belligerent with Germany (against Poland), then an enemy of Germany.--Countakeshi 13:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
A fact not to be underestimated: 1941 when the Anti-Comintern Pact was re-awaken, Finland signed it. Fagyd 19:54, 4th March 2006 (UTC+2)
I think that this issue should be resolved on the basis of the Tripartite Treaty. While Finland was either allied, co-belligerant or whatever with Nazi Germany, the state was quite likely unrelated to Mussolini's regime and Imperial Japan, at least in the sense of international law. Therefore the axis consisted of the three major powers already noted, as well as Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria. Certainly if Finland's relations with the Axis as a whole, not just those of Germany, were as close as those of the other 'little' members of the treaty, then we could consider them as an Axis country. Lacking that, I think co-belligerant or perhaps fine weather ally might be a more suitable term.--Cuomo111 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
(This issue needs no separate title, as it is intended as attack on the sill co-belligerent status of finland)(JH) (Yes, it does, as we are rehashing an old discussion in a new point of view, not simply continuing the existing debate, not to mention making the page more readable)(W)
Reasons for considering Finland a ”co-belligerent.” 1) Finland only signed formal alliance to augment specific treaties like transit treaty after several years of joint warfare and even then only as a temporary political move. 2) Finland had policy that was independent form the reich and on occasion not harmonious with it. 3) Joining the allies in 1944. 4) Finns may not have had full freedom of choice in all matters. 5) Errrrrr… well is that not enough, I mean that is all I have got…
Reasons for considering Bulgaria a “co-belligerent” 1) Complete lack of any significant or long term military co-operation. Only major joint operation took place during the short war against Greece and Yugoslavia, latter co-operation hardly deserves mention as it can be classified as anti-partisan warfare.. Bulgarian troops were never placed under command of Germans and German troops were never placed under command of Bulgarians. 2) Independent policy causing Germany grief for example by upsetting Turkey. 3) Complete factual non-participation in all German major fronts against both Soviets and Western allies. 4) Lack of armaments co-operation as Bulgarian army (unlike Finnish) was not to any extent German armed. 5) Lack of specific co-operation pacts to augment the alliance treaty the practical meaning of which was short termed. 6) Bulgarians never participated in the waffen SS military formations (unlike Finns.) 7) As demonstrated by Yugoslavia denying Germans passage and being invaded, no one had full freedom of choice in the middle of a world war. Should one go to a dictionary, one would find that alliance is not alliance only if both allies entered it willingly, any more then marriage is marriage only if commitment is made out of love. Bulgarians would have better case then Finns, if they would like to argue being forced to an alliance they were unenthusiastic about. 8) Joining the allies in 1944
Reasons for considering Italy a “co-belligerent” 1) Independent policy causing Germany continuous grief, for example Italian attack on Greece, about which Germans were not warned beforehand, has been rumoured to be the first setback in the war to cause Hitler a fit of psychotic rage. 2) No co-operation in the armaments and munitions sector. Italy had independent weapons industry giving it independent warfare capability. 3) Non participation in the German battle of its main front against Soviets. Italian units in the East were voluntaries sent as “party to party” assistance, not military formations sent as “state to state” assistance. 4) Italian non-participation in the waffen SS military formations. 5) Joining the allies in 1943.
Due to the factual comparisons I presented above, I consider the whole “co-belligerent” issue a symptom of neurotic denial of my own people. Theory of Finland as “a co-belligerent” has little realistic basis at all. If put to test by attempting to apply it wider then to the specific situation that its inventors would LIKE to apply it, it can be seen as patently absurd.
Myself I feel that allying (sic!) with Germany after having gotten clobbered and robbed by the Russians in the winter war was very human, very stupid, very understandable and very consistent with finish characteristic nature of holding deep grudges full of cold hatred.
Janne Harju
Elaboration on munitions issue: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=3254,
Tanks serviceable for combat missions by 1944 delivered to Finland from Germany – 77 from other sources (taken from USSR) – 16. German equipment formed 82% of Finnish tank forces.
Planes serviceable for combat missions by 1944 received from Germany – 331 (captured French fighters, Me-109s, dorniers and ju-88) from other sources – 103 (These were Brewsters, Blenheims and captured Russian bombers and modern fighters. older Russian fighterplanes, Fiats, Hurricanes, Gloster Gladiators, Fokkers etc had been removed from use as obsolete.) German equipment formed 76% of finish air force. No Finish anti tank weapons predating the continuation war was capable of penetration against Russian 1944 tanks and Finland had no production on its own.
German weapons PAK and rockets formed 100% of Finnish anti tank capability if gasoline bottles and satchel charges are not counted.
By educated guess, possibly some 1/3 out of finnish artillery originated from Germany. I also emphasise to you that Finland’s own capability for ammunition manufacture never equalled the daily use of Finnish army, even during the quiet period of 1942 and 1943. Finland received some hundred million small arm rounds and almost three million artillery shells from Germany during the war
The reason for considering Finland more dependent on German armaments is simple. Bulgarian active participation in the war on German side was limited to the year 1941. Older models becoming obsolete, expenditure of ammunition and losses taken were less of an issue then they were for Finland engaged in active conflict with a major power. Finland had some independence in this sector in 1941 by degrees becoming totally dependent by the major red army offensives of 1944 in every other regard exempt in manufacturing some small arms (SMG, LMG, Pistols, rifles).
Also on a different issue, I’d like to add that considering signing tripartite pact defining feature of being allied to Germany is completely arbitrary. In my opinion more realistic approach estimates such features as prolonged actual military co-operation and definite co-operation treaties such as the Finn-German transition treaty. You see paper is rather cheap. Even by the legalistic view Finland was allied to Germany by the Ryti-Ribbentrop treaty. Finnish legal trick of claiming the treaty a “personal alliance” enabled Finland to dismantle it faster then speed of light “ab initio” when it became liability. If such trick is taken seriously, then Soviet Union could make absolutely the same claim about the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty.
Janne Harju
PS. Now I notice that I indeed misspoke and stand corrected. I should have said "dependent" or "equipped" etc, not "armed." Bulgarian army did get German weapons. It was not dependent on them entirely.
The Soviet Union couldn't use similar claim with M-R Pact, as it was ratified in the proper order in Soviet Union. R-R never was.
There are several examples in the modern world, when two countries make limited co-operation against the third one, and still one is not considered allied to another one.
Finland is a touchy subject, most people will agree that Finland was back stabbed (M-R Pact) and that eventually lead to a relationship with Germany. But, was Finland forced to attack the Soviet Union? Finlands goal was to reclaim lost territory from the Winter War, but why did they go beyond their pre-existing Winter War boundaries?
Great Britian which can be viewed as the leader of the Allies declared war on Finland on December 6th 1941. This to me throughs Finland firmly in the Axis camp. While, I can see no existance of an actual agreement binding Finland to the axis, her actions and the actions of the UK seem to through her directly within the axis camp. Also, the UK bombed Pestamo as well.
I also find using the arguement that the US never declared war on Finland as very weak. Is it fair to say that the USSR was a member of the Allies pre-1945? We can all say yes to that. But, the USSR did not declare war on Japan till the waning days of the war.
Also, the Allies allowed the USSR to keep territory seized during the Winter War. Would this be considered a war spoil for defeating a member of the Axis? More than likely, it shows the timidness of the Allies, but it is notable.
Finland was not in a enviable position. But, lets not rewrite history here. Keep the blurb about the Finnish POV on the subject, but lets not move them out of the Axis.TchussBitc 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Finland did fight on the axis side, I don't contest that. But what I do contest is the simplistic view that all countries on the axis side were from the same mold and committed to the cause similarily. It cannot be said on the Allied side, so why it should be said on Axis side? I do like to use term co-belligerence just because of the definition of the term: co-operation without the formal treaty of alliance. Right to the point. --Whiskey 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
UK cared very little about Finland when it became evident that UK was fighting about her survival with Germany. When UK declared war on Finland, UK and USSR were fighting alone against Germany and US participation was nowhere to be seen.
I see all of your points, but here is what bugs me. First, the whole "peace treaty point", second Germans attacked the USSR from Finland, and third Finland acquired lands outside of her borders. Add all of these together the fact that Finland also signed the Anti-Comitern Pact is relevant (not relevant without the others)TchussBitc 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems as if Finland gets special treatment.
Maybe it is because they are Western Europeans.
Romania was in a worse situation than Finland and people do not hesitate to put them in the Axis lot. Sure they did sign the Tripartate (Sp?) Treaty, but don't forget about the Besarabia land grab, the Vienna Diktat, and Bulgaria claiming Constanta (Sp?). They where screwed.
Also, I started reading the Paris Peace Treaty a bit and I found the following: "WHEREAS Finland, having become an ally of Hitlerite Germany and having participated on her side in the war against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and other United Nations, bears her share of responsibility for this war;"
To me Romania was in a worse position than Finland. Romania is no angel by any means (Persecution of minorities & annexing Soviet lands), but they defintley had a lot of kowtowing to do if they where to ever reclaim their territory (from Hungary and Bulgaria).
Letter or treaty, they still agreed to put their ability to negotate a peace treaty in the Germans' hands. To me that is putting a lot of faith in someone, especially when they are "not" your ally...
This I totally agree with. You are right that in western media this classification occurs. But, it's not the same as "Co-Belligerent" or "Axis Member". TchussBitc 04:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
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 Power]]s than [[Axis Powers|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)
I don't see what you gain, except making the wikipedia convention less obvious or comprehensible for newcommers (and others).
--Ruhrjung 20:00, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Use some common sense here. Axis Powers is definitely better, like September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. We have The Beatles and not The Beatle. How about "The Axis"? --Jiang 21:54, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Google: "axis power": 6,820 (many about craps and power supplies). "axis powers": 38,600 '"axis powers" -xslt -xml -toy': 37,000. So we use powers becuse it's the term used for them unless you're writing about only one of them. Same for allied powers. Ruhrjung, you have the naming convention right but you're applying it to an article where the convention makes the title wrong. Good intention; wrong article. Do consider it elsewhere, though - you got unlucky this time. JamesDay 01:44, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Clearly the plural Axis_powers is better than Axis_power in this case. No article on this subject was ever called Axis Power. I have created a link from The_axis as recommended above. [[User:Rollo|> Rollo]] 23:01, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
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)
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)
Cameron Nedland 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
Wouldnt Crotia, Siam, Manchiria and Finland be considored technical and puppet members of the axis? Vichy France and France are not one in the same. Its an East Germany West Germany situation because its not clear which Germany lost WWI or was formally Prussia. Vital component 4:00am May3rd
I also don't think that the puppet states should be in the same category as the lesser axis powers. They can be mentioned, but they're not really the same. --Shallot 11:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Exactly; countries occupied by the Axis such as Siam, Manchuria and even Yugoslavia could be more likened to Poland's poisition than to that of Hungary or Romania. In the case of Yugoslavia/Croatia, the Croatian ustashis supported the Nazis whereas Serbian militiamen opposed them - Yugoslavia was a signatory to the Tripartite Pact but after a coup had essentially reneged on the commitment. In Manchuria I couldn't imagine Chinese alive during the Rape of Nanking being particularly sympathetic to the Japanese a scant ten years later. The Japanese presence was never particularly liked, and many national liberation movements, once preoccupied with fighting Britihs or French colonial masters, switched their focus to the Japanese and fought side by side with the Europeans. Naturally this would be reversed following the war. Comparing this to Hungary, Romania, etc, where many in the local populations welcomed the Nazi soldiers as brothers and desired to cast out their undesirables for the concentration camps, one can see the dichotomy between the occupied states and puppet ally states. Nevertheless, I agree with the above author - an Axis state should be defined as a country seen by the population/Allied government of the time as an Axis state. --Cuomo111 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Ditched it now. --Joy [shallot] 11:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Vital Component reintroduced some of the wordiness. This time it's not so bad WRT POV as the last time, but I still don't like it. --Joy [shallot] 22:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would have thought that Norway would feature in the article as the Norwegian government of Vidkun Quisling sent Norwegian volunteers to fight on the eastern front and collaborated with the Germans. Have I misinterpreted something here? --Roisterer 00:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
joy who are you addressing and for the record Vichy France is considored to be a different country from France. Charles de Gaul was the exiled 'leader' of France not Vichy France.
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)
Hitohito is mention over Victor Emanuel because V.E. was seen as more of a figure head moinarch. Its true that it was him to stripped Mussolini of power but only after the Allies had invaded Siccily. With Hirohito things werent as simple. Sense Hiro comanded so much loyalty Tojo would not have been able to force his hand without a rebelion and he couldn't threaten Hiro because that would need action. Killing Hiro would've been Tojo's down fall. Now all the flags I put on the side have to do rankings based on defense and immportance. I but Imperial Japan on the tope because it was the last Axis Allie to fall.
Vital component- 10:13pm
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
India does NOT equal Provisional Goverment of India or Free India. Had they occupied the same years during sovereignty it would be counted as a SPLINTER like with Italy and Salo.. It also does hurt that the countries recognizing it were close to dismanteling every other nation in the World.. V.C.---
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)
I have changed the Bulgarian flag, posting the Kingdom of Bulgaria flag... OF (ОФ) was a left wing anti-nazi organization.
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)
why is there the name "malaca' in parenthesis after the name 'malaya'? malaya is not equivalent to malaca, or rather, malacca. malacca is a city port within malaya, and is never used as a name equivalent to malaya.
"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)
Does the Axis have their own flag? --206.255.32.51 14:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, neither did the Allies either.--Countakeshi 13:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
The Vichy Flag shown is the Vichy Presidential Flag, the Axe symbol is meant to represent the Frankish tribes and the stars are there to represent Marshall Petain's military rank.
Shouldn't the Vatican be in the same category of Switzerland? --Error 23:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Now you are faulty. Estonians saw Hitler as a freedomer because we hated soviets(bolševiks) since 1918 :). Hitler gave order to hold Island of Saaremaa, last base of natzis in Estonia till the last man standing. The battle of Tehumardi sended natzis out of Saaremaa.
"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.
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)
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)
No, he didn't--Lucius1976 10:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
He was in fact formally in charge after Hitler's suicide. He wasn't really Fuehrer though. He was in charge of the formal surrender of the German forces in Denmark, Holland and North-West Germany on May 4 after the British had succesfully cut off the Russian approach towards the Danish border. This would prove to be of vital importance during the Cold War as the Russian attempt to gain direct access to the Atlantic had been stopped. His role as president was therefor limited to securing the surrender of the last German forces to the Western Allies rather than the Russians. MartinDK 08:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Wasn't Portugal also a sympathetic Fascist country at that time? Critic9328 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah they were, just like Spain and other dictatorships of the time. Cameron Nedland 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
In fact, Germany helped the Spanish government suffocate the civil war.
Portugal was a right wing dictatorship but leaned heavily towards the allies, allowing them to use the Azores as a base.
Portugal was totally against the fascists and the only reason they didnt make the history books is that they didnt fight as much. My great grandfather was in the war fighting against the facists for portugal.
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)
Yeah, go ahead, add it. They were very pro-Hitler. Cameron Nedland 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to make an important distinciton between popular Nazi support and actual diplomatic governmental alliance. There's a big difference between a populace supporting its' occupier and a country agreeing to send its' armies off to war to fight with any ally. The Anschluss was not universally supported, though many did support the Austrian Nazi Party - in any event, Austria lost any further governmental independence on foreign relations and defence, and as such, how can we charge 'Austria' as being a belligerant Axis power? It just seems to me we're trying to put blame on people who lived 60 years ago. In any case this article looks quite good now, the distinctions of involvement have been made clear.
" 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)
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)
I'm very doubtful about the minor axis powers that would 're-emerge later'. It implies some connection of the later states with the Axis regimes which is difficult to show. I will await some evidence that the connection is justified. I've removed India as being the least justified. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is very inaccurate.
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)
Origins Nazi Germany Enlarge Nazi Germany Kingdom of Italy Enlarge Kingdom of Italy Imperial Japan Enlarge Imperial Japan
The term was first used by Benito Mussolini, in November 1936, when he spoke of a Rome-Berlin axis arising out of the treaty of friendship signed between Italy and Germany on 25 October 1936. Mussolini declared that the two countries would form an "axis" around which the other states of Europe would revolve. This treaty was forged when Fascist Italy, originally opposed to Nazi Germany, was faced with opposition to its war in Abyssinia from the League of Nations and received support from Germany. Later, in May 1939, this relationship transformed into an alliance, called by Mussolini the "Pact of Steel". The Axis was extended to include the Empire of Japan as a result of the Tripartite Treaty of 27 September 1940. The pact was subsequently joined by Hungary (20 November 1940), Romania (23 November 1940), Slovakia (24 November 1940) and Bulgaria (1 March 1941). The Italian name Roberto briefly acquired a new meaning from "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo" between 1940 and 1945.
Major Axis Powers o Nazi Germany, under Führer and Chancellor Adolf Hitler (and in the last days of the war, Hitler's designated successor, President and Chancellor Karl Dönitz). o Fascist Italy (until 8 September 1943), under Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini who ruled Italy in the name of King Victor Emmanuel III of the House of Savoy. Afterwards, Victor Emmanuel III led it as a Western Allied Nation. o Imperial Japan, under Emperor Hirohito and Prime Minister Hideki Tojo (and in the last days of the war, Prime Ministers Kuniaki Koiso and Kantaro Suzuki).
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)
Yes you are, they werent an ally a none agression pact means you wont attack each other for X amount of time not that you are an ally. They invaded Poland because that was the deal that was given, the Soviet Union would get some land and the germans would get some land. Read about the pact for more info. (Deng 07:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC))
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.
The Soviet Union was not a Co-belligerent, they invaded Poland seperatly. Germany and Russia signed a non-aggresion treaty, but they were not allies. Oh course, everybody knows it was the Germans who broke that treaty. They never had any had any joint operations or anything. The USSR pretty much had their own side.
~Will 043
It isn't mentioned that after the fall of the "Legionary" regime in Romania, Romania became a Soviet Ally and fought against retreating germans. As Allied combatant, Romania is on the 3rd place in human casualties, and for that reason it should be at least mentioned that Romania hasn't been with the Axis for the entire war.
Romania, alongside Bulgaria (that was in a similar situation) are not generally credited with being allied with Allies at all. The treaty of 1944-08-23 is generally considered as a truce, with Romania being obliged, as part of the treaty, to supply the allies with manpower (it was that, or a full scale Soviet invasion). The Romanian "Switching sides" is generally taken either as a conditional surrender or as a truce, given the circumstances. It would be rather ridiculous to credit Romania (or for that matter Italy or Bulgaria) as part of the Allied war efforts, given that Romania had been fighting alongside The Axis for more than 3 years - it only participated to the Allied war efforts for 8 months and 16 days. Romania suffered around 60.000 military casualties while fighting for the Allies (I am using one of K. Hitchins' books). That would put Romania 8th or 9th in their allied war efforts. However, Romania lost around 250.000 while fighting for the Axis, and that would put them third in the Axis war effort.[citation needed] --83.103.179.161 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I hereby propose the following changes to this article:
Superdix 08:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
What is a puppet state, who were they in WWII, and what did they accomplish?
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)KingofRedRoses
It seems it wont let me change the article. This is my first time using the account, perhaps someone can fix the errors, theyre in the "Membership in the Axis Portion Underneath the section on the three major powers.
KingofRedRoses 10:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)KingofRedRoses
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)
Shouldn't Korea be included, in the same way as Austria? Phonemonkey 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Have removed the following part from this section because it does not make any sense. Someone who knows this information should reword it and add it back in. JenLouise 06:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)