Talk:Axis Powers

Contents

1 League becomes the Axis? 2 Finland 2.1 the main problem I had was the word "considered". 2.2 Ally or co-belligerent? 3 Page move 4 Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis 5 Collaborators as Axis Powers 6 too wordy 7 Norway as Axis ally? 8 Incongruence 9 India 10 WRONG BULGARIAN FLAG 11 Reason for editing the Southeast Asia section 12 What does this mean? 13 Axis flag 14 Vichy Flag

League becomes the Axis?

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

Finland

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)

the main problem I had was the word "considered".

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)

Ally or co-belligerent?

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

Matti Yrjölä's website is good, and as far as I know, generally correct. You have however to read with more care. The coverage in the Wikipedia articles on the Continuation War and on co-belligerence may also help you understand, why your change[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_Powers&diff=9830635&oldid=9827154) has been deemed unacceptable. It's not "reasonable" to say that "active coalition" is the same as "coalition of some sort" is the same as "co-belligerence against a common enemy". Since there actually was a period of what can be classified as an active coalition, i.e. the period of the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement, this is not without relevance. Your proposed wording of the commentary part of the article replicates an error that existed in the German Wikipedia and, I believe, has since been corrected. You wrote:

However, after Finland regained the lost territories of the Winter War it went on the defensive and did not continued its advance, even after German pressure to do so.

This is downright wrong.

/Tuomas 18:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Hitler declared to be allied with the Finns, but Finland's government declared their intention to remain a non-belligerent country, not the least due to a remaining neutralist public opinion. The truth was somewhere in-between:

1. In practice, by mining the Gulf of Finland Finland's navy contributed to Germany's attack from the beginning. Thereby the Leningrad navy was locked in by Finland's navy, making the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia practically domestic German waters, where submarines and navy could be trained without risks.

2. After the Soviet attack on Finland, its re-conquest of the Karelian Isthmus, and to a lesser extent the occupation of East Karelia, contributed to the siege of Leningrad.

Thats what i wrote. So maybe you should delete it there as well?

3. The sixteen Finnish divisions tied down large numbers of Soviet troops.

4. Germany's supply of much needed nickel from Petsamo and iron from Sweden was critical to the Nazis' ability to prolong the war.

--User:Holger1076 21:44, 31 Jan 2005

Well, one idea with the internal wikipedia links is to avoid duplication of detailed information. When you put the sentence "But Finland cooperated with Germany during Barbarossa and German troops and airforces were allowed to operate against the Soviet Union from Finnish soil." before the reference to the co-belligerence during the Continuation War, you first of all obscured these references. You also extracted information from the referred articles in a biased way. And, of course, as anyone can see, your claim that "that's what you wrote" is wrong. :-)

Finland cooperated with Germany before the Continuation War first and foremost as a necessary protective arrangement against an expected Soviet attack. Then, during the Continuation War, Finland cooperated with Germany as a co-belligerent, not as an ally. Your way of expression carries echoes of the Stalinist propaganda that tried to depicture Finland as an aggressive threat against the 50 times bigger Soviet Union, and tried to give the World the impression that Finland had attacked the Soviet Union twice: both starting the Winter War and the Continuation War, when the reality is the opposite.

The threat of a renewed Soviet invasion after the Winter War was very real and vividly felt by all Finns. The Soviet veto against closer defensive cooperation between Finland and Sweden could have no other function than to facilitate the next invasion (since the Swedes' prime precondition for such an alliance was the Finns' renouncement of any claim of re-aquisition of the lost Finnish Karelia). Britain neither wished to, nor could, support Finland after the German occupation of Denmark and Norway. The only possible protector was Hitler's Germany. Although there existed political circles within Finland, that gladly had commenced a war against the Soviet Union with the Germans in the back, these circles were fringe minorities. Finland had a working democratic parliamentarism all through WWII, and the government's policy was quite another. The occupation of the Baltic Republics clearly proved that Finland was badly needing protection; the Germans were the only alternative; and the German protection had a prize. Finnish concessions to Nazi Germany are not to be denied, but neither should they be exaggerated.

Finland made concessions to both the Soviet Union and to Nazi Germany that were questionable in light of international law on neutrality, but Finland's government had both domestic and international reasons to make these concessions so small as only possible. Finland's position, like Sweden and Switzerland isolated from the pre-Barbarossa Allies, made it unevietable that the neutrality became somewhat Germany-leaning, at least as long as Germany seemed to become the victor of the war. Finland's concessions (before the Soviet attack) were not qualitatively different from for instance Sweden's. The German troops on Finnish soil were there primarily to avert a Soviet attack, and Germans were with few and unimportant exceptions not allowed to "operate from Finnish soil" against the Soviet Union before the Continuation War. This didn't make Finland to an Axis power, except for in the enemy's propaganda, that unfortunately after Britain joining Finland's enemies in December 1941 has been spread also among English speakers.

/Tuomas 01:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

Was Sweden, that (for once) characterized herself as a non-belligerent instead of a neutral in the Winter War an "ally" of Finland? Withouth Sweden's military and diplomatic support, Finland would not have survived the Winter War. Without Germany's support, Finland would not have survived the Continuation War. English is not my mother tongue, although I have went to school in an English language setting for a couple of years. Nevertheless, I must admit that my understanding of English usage is sometimes lacking. According to that English I've learned, Finland was a co-belligerent and not an ally — with a possible exception for sex weeks in 1944. To me, the allegation of an alliance between my democratic fatherland and a dictature that concidered my "race" as Untermenschen nothing but Soviet propaganda.

I think it is important with distinctions. You, Josh, recently 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. This contradicts anything I until today have read, and doesn't exactly increase your credibility in my eyes. /Tuomas 05:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The critical issue here is whether Finland entered into an alliance by her own choice, and if so, which the purpose and goals of this alliance were, or if Finland involuntarily found herself in the position as co-belligerent with another country against a common enemy (that this second country had invaded). Being ideological adversaries, or not, is maybe not particularly relevant — unless one interprets the world war as an ideological war and argues that also the Finns of 1940 did so.

The debate in this issue was strong for all of the Cold War, with Soviet sympathizers arguing that the Continuation War was a war of choice, and anti-Communists arguing that Finland like driftwood was subjected to the forces of greater powers. The fall of the Soviet Union, and the opening of some Soviet archives, effectively ended that debate.

If Wikipedia tries to argue that co-belligerence is nothing but an euphemism for a defeated military alliance, then that's quite something different than to inform that some people (or some similar weasel term) thinks so, or as like the article on co-belligerence does, state that Finland was neither an ally nor a non-belligerent. This is a matter of both correctness and NPOV.

I think the article is good as is, with the link to the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement under "Active coalition", and the remark that some people consider Finland an Axis-country, but that the Finns disagree, and including the links to co-belligerence and to the Continuation War.

--Johan Magnus 19:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Johan, I would tend to agree with you. Joshbaumgartner 19:52, 2005 Feb 4 (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:

Finland was one of the victims of Soviet aggression in 1939. It refused Soviet territorial demands, and was invaded by Soviet forces, beginning the Winter War. Finland sufficiently delayed the invasion that an agreement was settled, costing the Finns territory but not their independence. Finland then joined Germany in attacking the Soviets in 1941, in what was called the Continuation War. When the Soviets took the initiative in 1943, Finland was again forced to the table, where they agreed to cease hostilities but avoided occupation and destruction of their government. Finland would become a neutral power balanced between NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War.

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)

Page move

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)

I moved it back for the interim because the decision to move it in the first place was unilateral. --Jiang 21:56, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

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|> ]] 23:01, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis

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)

Google Test: Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis - only 378 hits, axis powers" -xslt -xml -toy - 37,000 hits. Axis Powers is clearly the more popular term. Also, I can't think of any other Axis Powers this can refer to at all; if there are some, then this can be disambig-ed. "Axis Powers" is more common, so it is used. Also, the Axis was expanded, as discussed in this article, to include countries other than Italy, Germany, and Japan. Axis Powers is clearly the correct way to refer to this group, as discussed in the article. -- Mattworld 03:00, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In addition, just about every link on Wikipedia refers to this group as the Axis Powers, the only ones that do not are ones changed by WhisperToMe before he/she moved the page. -- Mattworld 03:06, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis" needs to be mentioned but it's not the usual way they are described, so it'll only be the right name for the article when there's another "axis powers" to disambiguate and when that one is more common than this one, so a quick link to it at the top of this one can't do justice to the disambiguation. JamesDay 05:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Collaborators as Axis Powers

I am certainly no expert in this area, but for all practical purposes, wasn't Vichy France an Axis power? I suppose mentioning it would lead to much gnashing of teeth.

Paul, in Saudi

First in the last year, and thanks to the wikipedia project, I've understood how much the Axis power is still understood in its context of war time propaganda. Hence, it ought to be of no relevance what sources the French can present, the only relevant thing is if the contemporary Allied propaganda classified the remains of France as an Axis power, or not. — Outside of the anglophone world, however, I seriously doubt that countries defeated by the Axis would be considered Axis themselves.
--Ruhrjung 19:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

too wordy

The July 24th change by 205.188.112.131 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Axis_Powers&diff=4812039&oldid=4811368) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_Powers&diff=11177840&oldid=11163902) 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)

Norway as Axis ally?

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)

But do not forget that Norway had one of the best organized and most effective resistance movements in Europe. Leonard G. 02:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Norway was invaded and occupied with an exile government in London. That's three strong reasons not to classify Norway as an Axis Power. --Johan Magnus 06:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

France had an organised and effective resistance movement, was invaded & occupied and had an exiled government, yet Vichy France is listed as an Axis Power. --Roisterer 22:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

France was invaded, but only partly occupied. The Free French Forces wasn't exactly an entity headed by an exiled government. --Johan Magnus 06:20, 20 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.

user:vital component

Incongruence

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

India

I cannot believe a few pockets of territory captured by the Japanese, ruled by an extremist leader and recognised by a few Axis and Axis-controlled states can be considered to be India. India was well and truly on the side of the Allies with its armies fighting alongside British and others all over the world. A handful of soldiers who rode in on the coattails of the Japanese do not represent India!

User:222.153.79.183

No, you are surely right. However, Wikipedia works after the principle that people make changes they are knowledgeable about, and it seems as if no-one before you has deemed theirself competent to remove this peculiarity, that I believe was quite recently added.

Wikipedia begs to be improved!

Go ahead! /Tuomas 13:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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.---

WRONG BULGARIAN FLAG

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.

Reason for editing the Southeast Asia section

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)

What does this mean?

"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)

Axis flag

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

Vichy Flag

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)