Talk:Axis powers/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Switzerland

I think Switzerland needs to be added to the Controversial Section since its role was much like Sweden. It built for the Nazis and aloud transportation of goods. The Brits and the Americans even bombed Switzerland due to what they perceived as false neutrality. So I would definitely say they were enough of a controversial case to be mentioned. The info won't be hard get.Stumink (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is article Foreign relations of the Axis powers for all that kind of stuff. Controversial section in this article was originally just for Denmark and Soviet Union, I guess Spain sort of fits but Sweden is already very weak case, I would personally prefer removing it.--Staberinde (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Massive changes

Could you please explain, R-41.. ? -- Director (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Added war justifications with references, reorganized material, added pictures of people and places involved in the war. The article is vastly improved in organization of layout. If you are primarily objecting to my removal of Yugoslavia from the list, it is because it appears to be exaggerating a ten-day period in which the alliance was made, followed by outrage on the streets and the government's immediate overthrow. The state of Yugoslavia made no military contributions to the Axis war effort.--R-41 (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

From another perspective, the country's legally-elected government signed a treaty, and the British overthrew that government installing another with no legitimacy. And even so, the latter did not revoke the treaty. How about a very brief mention in the controversial cases.

What worries me most in the current article is the inclusion of the cockamamie category of a "collaborator state". Vichy France was not part of the Axis powers. -- Director (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it can be mentioned in the controversial cases. However the decision to join the Axis was very unpopular in Yugoslavia.--R-41 (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah.. not quite. It was unpopular with Serbs, who fought Germans in World War I. It was (initially) rather popular with Croats and Slovenes, who fought with Austrians and Germans. Belgrade, where the demonstrations took place, is as you know - in Serbia. Also there is the matter of the British likely inciting said dissent. -- Director (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved to controversial cases.--R-41 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Union co-belligerency during Invasion of Poland

Shall we move SU from controversial to co-belligerent sector? The SU's role in Poland was the same as Iraq's in Anglo-Iraqi war as: Both SU and Iraq were fighting some Allied members: SU against Poland and Iraq against the Commonwhealth while remained neutral with other Allies. Both SU and Iraq were doing so in direct cooperation with Axis members: SU fought against Poland with Germany and Slovakia, Iraq fought against the Commonwhealth with Germany and Italy. Both SU and Iraq later joined the Allies: SU joined after Axis invasion, Iraq joined after Commonwealth victory and resultant change of government. So, why not?Seaisa00105 (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It´s problematic because USSR did not fight Poland WITH Germany or the Axis, it fought them at the same time and at least in part under the umbrella of the pact with Germany(only with Germany). Also not to be forgotten, USSR had nothing in common with the axis in regards to Poland, the USSR had old grievances from the war with Poland after WWI as the primary cause. But there is still SOME ground to claim that they were co-belligerent, even if it´s a bit shaky, so keeping it under "controversial" is probably better than anywhere else. As putting it anywhere else will definitely make it wrong in SOME way.

DW75 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not sure this changes the conclusion about how the article should be written, I'd question your statement that the the USSR had nothing in common with the Axis over Poland. Both Germany and the Soviet Union had territorial claims in Poland, which after all was partitioned between the two prior to the First World War. And the Soviet action against Poland was under the umbrella of the secret protocol to the German-Soviet nonagression pact, so while it may have fallen short of an actual wartime alliance (since Russia spun its action as a protective action rather than an act of war) the two powers were widely viewed as all but allies thereafter. --Yaush (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture Italian Empire

The Italian Empire in at its maximum extent, in 1941.

Victor Falk removed the adjacent picture with as summary "rmv map of all territories ever ruled by Fascist Italy, not "maximum extent in 1941" Plus, contains many inaccuracies". But at first sight, the map looks adequate and accurate enough for its size. If the picture is too bad to stay, I like to here the reasons. The Banner talk 01:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• • The area in France is the occupation zone after Case Anton in November 1942. The occupation zones granted in June 1940 are way too small too be visible, and even the 50km demilitarised zone would be less than 1 pixel on this scale.
  • Tunisia was also occupied after Torch in November, and Germany was calling the shots, not Italy.
  • Territory in Dalmatia is grossly exagerated.
  • Crete was occupied by Germany
  • What's with the rectangle in Egypt? Taking the longitude of El Alamein, and then an arbitrary lattitude between the Mediteranean and Libya's southernmost point does not ipso facto create a "territory of the Italian Empire".

This map is "all the territories ever ruled by Fascist Italy at one time or another", and it might be useful in some contexts (if the errors are corrected) like in the Italian colonial empire article, but it would better to have a map that really shows the maximum extent in 1941 here. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Vichy France was obviously a co-belligerent power

i don't understand why Vichy France is considered so controversial. it was at war with the Allies from at least 1941 beginning with the Syrian campaign to the end of its existence. if it wasn't "officially" an Axis member, it was obviously a co-belligerent. I doubt any Allied commander on the field during the war would have any second thoughts on Vichy France's association with the Axis Powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.210 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Vichy France fought the Allies on several occasions e.g. Syria&Lebanon, Madagascar, Gibraltar, Dakar, French North Africa and crackdowns on pro-Allied resistance by Vichy paramilitary forces(Milice, Reserve Mobile Group and National Police), sometimes with German/Italian assistance. But, much like Soviet Union during the Invasion of Poland, some people simply don't want to see Vichy France counted as Axis co-bel despite what happened, thus making it "controversial". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.52.124 (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It´s controversial because even though Vichy did act as a cobelligerent, it did not do so by it´s own free choice, and although it did fight at several occasions, it was generally wary about really taking part in the war on the axis side. Noticeably, it put up the serious fights when it was a matter of French/Vichy colony areas. Certainly not a clearcut case either way. If i categorised it, i would probably place it as a puppet state, but that´s not perfect either. So controversial is probably as good as it gets. DW75 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree : Vichy was officially neutral during the war, even though it did obviously collaborate with the Germans. It only fought back when its colonies were invaded by the Allies, and was never considered a co-belligerent by the Germans. Keep in mind that the Germans disarmed the rump French army when they occupied South France in 1942 : would they have deprived themselves of a potential ally if they had considered Vichy a real military partner ? It was not entirely a puppet government either (I wouldn't compare it with Quisling's Norway) since it did retain some degree of autonomy and had some legitimacy, as Pétain had not been put in power by the Germans. Granted, its autonomy was gradually reduced and, by the end of the war, it had become little more than a Quisling government, but it was still the most "autonomous" of all collaborationist governments. Even though Vichy is widely seen today as a reprehensible collaborationist governement - which it was - its status, legitimacy (or lack thereof), degree of autonomy and policies are a complex matter. It has been, in France, the subject of lengthy historical and political debates.

By the way, I replaced the following sentence - "The non-occupied part of France and a large part of its colonial empire, known as the "Vichy regime" of Marshal Philippe Pétain, it collaborated with the Axis from June 1940 until November 1942, when the whole of France was occupied by Germany" - with another one. The "French State" (Vichy) was the nominal government of the whole French territory, including the occupied North. Pétain was the official head of state in Paris, and had nominal authority in the whole country, even though the government was residing in Vichy. "Vichy France" did not cease to exist in November 1942, either : even though its authority and autonomy were greatly reduced, it remained de facto in existence until August 1944 when its government members fled, or were evacuated by the Germans, in the face of the Allies' advance. We cannot let the reader believe that "Vichy France" only existed in the South, and was terminated in November 1942, that would be misleading.

I hope the new version I wrote is correctly worded. If I made a mistake with the English grammar, feel free to correct me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that, even though it was never a co-belligerent, Vichy could go into the "Client states" section, since it actually evolved into that as the war went. Or at least, if it remains in the "controversial" section (the details are controversial, but nowadays few actually deny that it collaborated, so it's not that controversial) the text should clearly explain its evolution from 1940 to 1944. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Serbia

It is absurd and a-historical to have an entry here entitled "Serbia (XY)". There is no "Serbia" to speak of, nor was there any between the wars either. The article is called Government of National Salvation because there was no country, only a non-sovereign civil administrative authority in a German occupation zone - when you change that article's title to "Serbia", then come back and introduce the error here as well.

And personally I couldn't care one whit for the uniform appearance of the section titles. If there are similar erroneous titles I can only apologize for not correcting them as well. -- Director (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So where was this state then, if not in Serbia? Are you suggesting that Serbia somehow did not exist as a place in 1941 or that this sub-section alone should not name that place? I can point you to 100 books that explicitly say something along the lines of "In Serbia, the Germans installed ...". Also, once challenged on your initial removal, you could have tried to justify it rather than edit-warring and relying solely on repeating the dubious assertion in an edit summary that use of the term is somehow "a-historical". N-HH talk/edits 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The heading is "client states", not "places". There was neither any client state nor any pre-war state by the name of "Serbia". Nor was there any Serbian "client state" by any name whatsoever. I really really really do not wish to repeat the previous discussions over at the relevant articles, its all been said and every query has been answered several times.

By the current organization of this article, the GNS should be up with the German colonies and dependencies. That's the actual discrepancy here. -- Director (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That page is called Government of National Salvation because, er, it's about the government. Whether Serbia existed as an independent country or state has nothing to do with anything here. And as large numbers of history books will tell you, that government was established in and exercised its authority within an area known as Serbia, which is pretty basic information that this page and the relevant section heading should be imparting to any readers. If it's good enough for actual historians it's good enough for WP, regardless of any bid by individual editors here to will certain words and geography out of existence. If you think the description "client state" is incorrect, the solution is to move the entry relating to Serbia, not to leave it where it is but simply strike out any mention of the word "Serbia". N-HH talk/edits 17:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "er", its a government, not a client state. I can't believe you've found a way to strt this thing again, it really can be viewed as disruption. Drop the stick please. -- Director (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And where would you say that government exercised its authority? More importantly, where would actual historians say it exercised its authority? In Serbia. Removing relevant information is disruption, especially when it's being done on the basis of such idiosyncratic logic. The bigger problem is your applying that logic on multiple pages, not my trying to explain to you the problem with it. N-HH talk/edits 17:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Others and myself have addressed this same argument of yours some dozen times by now, and that's just to you directly. Where did this government exercise power? It exercised very limited authority in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, a Nazi military occupation zone. Both of these can be described as having been located vaguely in a part of the geographic area generally referred to as "Serbia" (though that territory is usually viewed as significantly larger, and varied over time). How you manage to translate that into justification for listing a "Serbia" as a "client state", is beyond my comprehension. A source would not be wrong in saying the GNS "exercised power in Serbia", just as it would be correct in saying the NDH "exercised power in Bosnia" - that doesn't mean there was a Bosnian client state.. -- Director (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I said that a case could be made for moving it out of the "client state" section for those very reasons, and that that would be one actual solution to the problem you describe – not the erasing from history of the term "Serbia" – something which I see has now been done. It wasn't me that put it there in the first place you know. The problem I have is that when I look at any book on this topic, I see text and maps all explicitly referring to "Serbia" under German occupation and to "Serbia" as having a veneer of civilian government under that occupation. Yet come here and one or two random anonymous contributors appear, through some contorted but unfathomable private logic that they never deign to explain, to have declared this an "a-historical" error of terminology and that we shall strike all mention of "Serbia" and instead use a completely made-up and never-used-anywhere-else term for the entity/area in question. N-HH talk/edits 09:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Balkans are, and have always been, very complicated. To actually go into the essentially-meaningless details of the situation in occupied Yugoslavia, let alone that particular tiny scrap of territory, is more detail than most authors (dealing with WWII on a more general level) are prepared to bore their readers with. It is very much incorrect to call it "Serbia", but its also much easier and simpler and kind of accurate in a geographic sense. This should not deter us from researching sources with a more focused scope and figuring out what exactly was going on there: certainly not a country of any sort (client or otherwise). We must then be careful not to imply the existence of a state where there is none.

As regards the current title over there I see it as an unfortunate necessity. "Military Administration in Serbia" would be more appropriate for a Wiki title Imo. -- Director (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that's exactly as I characterised the situation: every historical and other book I have ever read, or since looked up online, refers to "Serbia" (whether they mean to suggest it is a "country", "state", an "area" or something else simply does not matter), none refer to the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", yet WP editors assert the right to declare the former term "incorrect" and/or to second guess why those books refer to it using that exact term. If you don't see quite how egregious a breach that is of pretty basic WP sourcing, editing and naming practices that's quite a problem. N-HH talk/edits 13:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but you're forgetting other basic WP policy, or rather you're giving some of it too much weight. We do not simply copy down what the sources state verbatim - we present the sourced facts in an encyclopedic manner. If the sources state something is not a country (note: no second-guessing involved), it is a mistake to present it as a country. Such a thing would also be against policy: our titles must not be misleading. And when you inevitably add to this the quagmire of Balkans politics, and realize fostering such inaccuracy is in addition a breach of neutral coverage, you see other fundamental policies that come into play. -- Director (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually we do very much copy terminology. What we don't do is copy verbatim narrative text, as that is plagiarism. I don't understand where this obsession with the question of whether Serbia is (or was at that point) a country or not comes from. That's a totally separate point. Nor does simply using the term imply that it was. If that is the sole basis for this, it's on even weaker ground than I thought. And if you want to keep on insisting that it is "inaccurate" to use the term, please write to Jozo Tomasevich [sic], Noel Malcolm, Tim Judah, Misha Glenny and 101 other historians and authors, who all quite happily use the term in this context, knowing exactly what they do or don't mean by it, and tell them quite how wrong they are. N-HH talk/edits 14:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And you'll need to get stuck into the following examples too, since none of these were countries either before or during their respective occupations: Occupation of the Rhineland, Occupation of the Ruhr, Occupation of Smyrna etc N-HH talk/edits 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I really wish I could again reply to all your points in detail, but, please understand, I've been discussing this for years. I get nauseated whenever its brought up. Everything's been said at least thirty times over by now. The sources do not really support you.. Your examples are not analogous.. Its a military occupation zone, not "Serbia".. etc. etc. -- Director (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

But there is no rational or source-based justification for not using the term Serbia or for not talking about the Occupation of Serbia or German-occupied Serbia etc. Yes it's a military occupation zone but it is also Serbia. Most of us can get our heads around the idea that the same entity can have more than one facet or more than one description, or that the same term can refer to different things at different times in history, and that when we talk about "Serbia" in the context of WW2 and the Nazi occupation we mean a slightly different thing, both territorially and in terms of status, from Serbia in 2013 or 1389. You've presumably been discussing it for years precisely because you and one or two others have gone off an idiosyncratic and rigid tangent and people keep having to point out to you the difficulty with maintaining the position that results. If you're constantly having to defend your stance, might that not lead you to reflect that there might a problem? And as for the sources, shall I just spell a few out? The idea that these don't mean what they say or are using the "wrong" terminology, which we have the right or even the obligation to dismiss, is fanciful.

• Tomasevich in War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, in a subsection titled "The German system of Occupation in Serbia": "Serbia proper, approximately within its pre-1912 borders, was the only area of dismembered Yugoslavia in which the Germans established a military government of occupation". He then goes on to repeatedly refer to "Serbia", including in phrases such as "German-occupied Serbia" and "civil affairs in Serbia"
• Tim Judah in The Serbs: "What was left was Serbia, more or less within its 1912 boundaries. Answering to the German occupation authorities, a Serbian caretaker regime was installed ..". Again, he goes on refer simply to Serbia when he mentions the area in question.
• Misha Glenny in The Balkans: "what had been a single country [Yugoslavia] was now chopped up into at least nine units ... Serbia itself was under direct German military rule, although in August 1941 a puppet government under General Milan Nedic was established". Again, he used Serbia throughout this part of the book as above.
• Noel Malcolm in Kosovo A Short History: ".. the rump Serbian state, which was under German military occupation but governed by Serbian officials from Belgrade". He, too, repeatedly from then on talks about events "in Serbia".

Anyone reading those – or myriad other examples – can see pretty plainly what these historians and authors are saying and what terminology they are using to say it, and hence whether the sources support my position or yours. I'm sorry, but WP user Director doesn't get to override that on the basis of their own convoluted existential meta-arguments or alleged fears about Serbian nationalist editing. N-HH talk/edits 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no sovereign state named Serbia during ww2, nominally or not. What did existed was only a puppet Government of National Salvation installed in Serbian region, similar to the one headed by Quisling in Norway and the ones in former Baltic states, civil governments with somewhat autonomy under German Occupation. This puppet government was not recognized as a sovereign state by the Axis, unlike Slovakia, Croatia, Albania under Germany and Italian Social Republic etc.. The Axis maintained no diplomatic missions in Serbia, only military occupational authorities. Thus by current 'sovereignty'-based standards Serbia was not qualified (same can be said regarding Montenegro, Albania under Italy, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia etc. which were non-sovereign puppet protectorates) On the other hand, does it really matter to distinguish puppet regimes by whether they were given nominal sovereignty or not? Puppets were puppets, no matter what they were called, they existed solely to assist Axis Occupation. Mycologicalfan (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That Serbia was not sovereign is not really in dispute; the immediate issue here was more simply about the use of the term "Serbia", which is unquestionably used by sources to refer to, identify and locate the area/entity in question, such that we should too. As for broader terminology, whether to apply the terms "puppet", "client", "dependency" etc, the line between ally and client, and the extent to which even nominally autonomous entities actually exerted any real autonomy are all pretty subjective judgments. There are no neat and universally agreed boxes for all these things to fall into and, given that, I'm not sure the article as a whole follows any logical structure in that regard. N-HH talk/edits 08:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what is the issue with Serbia. It's not listed as an axis country.--N Jordan (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Page References Tag - top of article

I went ahead and removed the Page References Tag. This label is completely unwarranted; as I looked over the references and they do contain page numbers (if there is a particular section that I missed or paragraph, then the tag needs to be applied specifically not to the entire article. --E-960 (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article have a "former country" type infobox? This question equally applies to Allies of World War II. —Srnec (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• YES the infobox is a part of every major Wikipedia article, and it is a useful tool, easily allowing a new reader to familiarize themselves with the subject matter of the article. So, this article needs to keep its current infobox as is. --E-960 (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there some background to this RfC that I'm missing? The name of the infobox does seem rather unfortunate, but Template:Infobox geopolitical organisation redirects to Template:Infobox country, so this one might be appropriate. But then again, there's also Template:Infobox war faction which might seem more on-topic. --125.24.66.60 (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox added, removed, re-added. That's the background.

The problem with the infobox is the way it tries to force such a complex thing into a box. Why is Pearl Harbour relevant in the map? Why not the start of Operation Barbarossa, for example? If Finland never signed the Berlin Pact, why is it in the infobox at all? Why are two events from the 1930s in the infobox when it says the Axis didn't come into existence until 1940? Why should we have to sort this out in a box? The article is difficult enough, and there we have the option of writing whole paragraphs. Srnec (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Listen Srnec, please stop making misleading statements... this RfC is going to be invalid because of how you characterize the issue. This is a long standig Infobox, and it was not "added, removed, re-added" as you describe it. You just went in and removed the Infobx without providing any explanation. Even in this RfC, you don't provided any reasoning as to why you don't think that the infobx is appropriate for this article. --E-960 (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't know what an RFC is. I worded the question impartially, as required. Srnec (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

yes, an infobox is of value here No need to remove the infobox as Srnec is trying to do. And the justification "revert infobox creep" is not a valid justification. And in fact, the actions bite with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. The Banner talk 14:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The arbitration case clearly determined that there was no requirement or prohibition on infoboxes. I think the addition of an infobox should be justified. It almost never is. Srnec (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

But they also stated: A small number of editors have repeatedly behaved poorly and in a polarizing fashion in infobox-related editing and discussions. And that is exactly what is happening here. You have given no valid reason for removal nor did I see any attempt to discuss the issue. You were reverted and straight away started a RfC to bulldozer the way. The Banner talk 14:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? See WP:BRD. I boldly removed the infobox and when reverted I began a discussion in the form of an RFC. What "bulldozing" are you talking about? You have given no valid reason for the box besides WP:OTHERSTUFF. I have given you reasons why the box is bad: it is arbitrary, incomplete, confusing. The subject is too complex for a standardised box. Srnec (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. This issue is not that "complex"... really. --E-960 (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any specific reason being discussed that would warrant the removal of the infobox. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the infobox should remain. As a perosnal opinion, I find the infobox useful. Mihaister (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• How about: most of the countries listed in it were not Axis powers and two of the four dates in it precede the existence of the alliance. It was not "dissolved" on 2 September 1945. Infoboxes attract this kind of stuff. How did you find it useful? Srnec (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that's a reason to remove the box wholesale. Rather, it sounds to me like an opportunity to find reliable sources with accurate and relevant information which may be used to correct the contents of the infobox. Provided they contain accurate information, I generally find infoboxes useful as a quick preview of a topic. Mihaister (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Just improve the infobox, as per the reasons Mihaister gave. PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. The bot sent me. Per the suggestion of the IP, Template:Infobox war faction. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. The current infobox is useful, even if the axis powers were not a single country. If it is inaccurate, improve it. If another type of info box is more relevant, get consensus to change the type, but the current info box type is fine in the meantime.--Wikimedes (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• The "former country" infobox could be serviceable even if the name, which lives only 'behind the scenes' is inappropriate for a political alliance. The current map is not great, as it showcases the "Allies" and their narrative of involvement, rather than drawing the eye to the "Axis" powers themselves. Interested parties might consider skimming through Category:20th-century military alliances to see a wide variety of other ways to treat current & former military alliances. "Former country", for what it's worth, is not common, though it is used for the "Central Powers" of World War I. Happy holidays, groupuscule (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we go ahead and close the RfC. We have 5 Yes votes, 1 Comment in favor, and 2 General comments, 0 No votes. --E-960 (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The map from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/WWII.png/280px-WWII.png

How can Argentina be classified as an ally? Just how much of South America actually did anything of use? Uruguay joined the Allies on 15 February 1945. Argentina and Chile supported Axis espionage agents operating in their countries. As did Paraguay, Brazil, Cuba, Mexico. What about the 4,000 German immigrants in Colombia? I know it's only a map but a little more accuracy might be worthwhile. Agent0060 14:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia wasn't allied with Axis powers. -- Bojan  Talk  13:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I don’t see how Yugoslavia fit the following description: “States listed in this section were not officially members of the Axis, but at some point during the war engaged in cooperation with one or more Axis members on level that makes their neutrality disputable.” Yugoslav government that signed the Tripartite Pact with reservations was overthrown just two days after signing the Pact. Yugoslavia fought the war with the Axis countries for 12 days (April 6-17, 1941). (Keep in mind that Germany successfully completed invasion of France and Low Countries in just 1 month and 12 days. France army was fully mobilized and supported by British troops, over 3.3 millions of people. The poorly trained and equipped Yugoslav army had less than 700,000 people, without the chance to complete the mobilization.)

The only real puppet state at the territory of Kingdom of Yugoslavia was the Independent State of Croatia, which is already listed. Italian attempt to create a puppet state in Montenegro resulted in general uprising in less than 24 hours. In Serbia (officially the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia), the local Serbian government was similar to the Czech government in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The protectorate had both president and prime minister, but the Territory of the Military Commander had only a prime minister. They didn’t have ministries of defense and foreign affairs. Ultimate authority within the Protectorate was held by the Reich Protector, within the Territory of the Military Commander that was held by the Military Commander. Also, POWs from Serbia were not released during the war. Slovenia was completely annexed into neighboring Axis countries.

So, I think Yugoslavia should be removed from this section or the introduction of the section should be changed.--N Jordan (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Since nobody edited this section, I had to do it. I tried to use as much from related articles as possible. N Jordan (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Albania was an Allied State and the entry here should be removed

Albania was an Ally state, the entry Albania under the Wiki page Allies of WW2 is well supported by historic sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II)

Therefore, since Albania was accepted officially as an Ally country (historic sources in the page above), it cannot be double-listed as an Axis country, thus should be removed.

The link Albania under German control does reflect to a puppet government. The definition of Axis states in the page explicitly clarifies that "The Axis powers, also known as the Axis, were the nations that fought in the Second World War against the Allied forces.". There is no historic reference to indicate any battle where an army of this government fought against the Allies. By the aforementioned definition of Axis state, this puppet government does not qualify for this page and should be removed.

The puppet pro-Axis government is already listed under the appropriate Wiki page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_puppet_states ). That section is duplicated here and should be removed as 'not relevant'.

LupinoJacky (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ehm, you moved Albania from the Axis side to the Allied side. No need to ignore the facts. The Banner talk 01:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear TheBanner, Albania was correctly mentioned in the Allied forces as a consequence of the provided numerous historic sources. As such, my request above is legitimate and should be answered on-topic (not personally). By definition "The Axis powers, also known as the Axis, were the nations that FOUGHT in the Second World War AGAINST the ALLIED forces." Since there are no references on any battle involving any Albanian army against any Allied force, then we should respect the definition of an Axis state and remove Albania from this page. LupinoJacky (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There is evidence of Albanian units fighting against the Allies. That you don't like that is not my fault. Could you please stop POV-pushing and falsifying the truth? The Banner talk 12:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is the evidence, can you please point to any evidence on the fighting of any official Albanian Army (not unaffiliated individuals) against Allies? I would be happy to see any historic evidence you have supporting that claim. Until there is no evidence, Albania cannot be listed here based on personal opinions. LupinoJacky (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What is your definition of "official Albanian Army"? After Italian invasion, "official Albanian Army" of King Zog I ceased to exist. At that time, a personal union between Italy and Albania has been created,and Albania became an Italian protectorate. Italian king Victor Emmanuel III become the king of Albania. Shefqet Vërlaci became the prime minister of Kingdom of Albania, and that was the only "official" Albanian government in that time. The Army of that Kingdom of Albania participated in invasion of Greece, under the command of Prenk Pervizi. Very soon, it was removed from the front. At that time, that was the only "official Albanian Army". King Zog was in London during the WW2 but he was not recognized by Allies as legal representative of Albania. There was no Albanian government in exile, at least not the one recognized by the Allies. There is also Albanian army that participated in pacification of Montenegro in July 1941 and occupation of Kosovo and Western Macedonia during the war. (Please note I'm using word "occupation" due the fact that Kingdom of Yugoslavia was an ally country that was occupied. This has nothing to do about Albanian-Serbian dispute over the region of Kosovo.) Latter, after the capitulation of Italy, Balli Kombëtar created new government of German-controlled Kingdom of Albania and fought the partisans in Albania and Yugoslavia. At that time, Yugoslav Partisans were officially recognized as a part of the Allied Forces.--N Jordan (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

NJordan, what you claim as "Army of the Kingdom of Albania" is a fictitious entity for which Google returns ZERO results. It does not exist in WW2. Did you make that up from your mind? Please read the comments below on the historic sources mentioning that the Albanian military forces were subsumed into Italian forces and no Albanian army existed in WW2. Please see discussion below that lack of fighting against Ally does not satisfy the criterion of inclusion as Axis. LupinoJacky (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

LupinoJacky, check other articles on Wikipedia. But the Albanian army under the command of colonel (later general) Prenk Pervizi[25] abandoned the Italians in combat, causing a major unraveling of their lines. The Albanian army believed to be the cause of the betrayal was removed from the front. The Colonel Pervizi and his staff of officials was isolated in the mountains of Puka and Shkodra to the North. - Albanian Kingdom (1939–43) Finally Balli Kombëtar joined Nazi puppet government and fought as an ally against antifascist guerrilla groups. - Balli Kombëtar--N Jordan (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The given source does not specify the status of the units under the command of Prenk Pervizi, which were under the command of the Italian Army (the source says he was under the command of Italian General Ubaldo Soddu) and not under the command of any Albanian army general or leader. In addition, the sources in the thread below state that the Albanian army was subsumed by the Italian army and did not not exist as an official independent army (that source closes the discussion). Nevertheless, this example is a great help for the argument that no Albanian army fought against the Allies, because as the text you gave clearly states that "He OPPOSED Italians withdrawing the Albanian troops from the Greek-Italian war.", which means he refused to fight against the Greeks. In addition, due to his forthcoming actions during the war Pervizi is listed as a combatant AGAINST Italy in this independent book: . Since the example you gave is a case where an Albanian colonel REFUSES to fight against the Greeks and FIGHTS against Italy, I think that it only reaffirms the position that no official Albanian army fought against Allies. LupinoJacky (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The point is more that you refuse to listen to every argument that does not fit in your opinion. You just keep denying every possible government and every possible army or military unit when that does not fit in your ideas about how Albania should have behaved in the war. But I guess you were not there at the moment so you are not responsible for how they behaved then. But you are responsible for a truthful reflection of that period now. But what you are doing is creating a twisted version of history, putting a bit of wallpaper over an inconvenient truth. The nasty thing: sooner or later that wallpaper will fall down again and exposes the truth. The Banner talk 01:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Classical move of people having no arguments: personal attacks. No comments from my side. 95.90.207.143 (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Lupino, it would be far nicer when you started to take part in the discussing instead of being in complete denial of the truth and just say no. The Banner talk 10:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The peacy treaty ending WW2, signed by Allied and Associated powers can be accessed through:

"United States Department of State, Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. Paris Peace Conference : documents (1946), page 802, web http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs/1946v04/reference/frus.frus1946v04.i001"

This treaty, page 802, explicitly states Article 26.a) "For the purposes of this Treaty, Albania shall be considered as an Associated Power."

As such, here is the proof that the Allies and Associated Powers officially recognized Albania as an Associated Power, which is the opposite of Axis. LupinoJacky (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Originally, Albania was not even invited to take part of these talks. The invitaion came onlater, after a request of Russia. ([1]). The Banner talk 18:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks TheBanner. It seems we both came to common terms regarding the fact that it was officially considered an Ally. Regarding the other part, whether the invitation came from the Soviets (as you say, I do not know if this is the case) or Yugoslavs, or USA, or China, etc ... that does not change the historic fact that it was considered officially an Ally. In international relations there are always lobbying efforts of countries in favor of other countries. But in the end what matters is the official document. LupinoJacky (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, there is nothing wrong to have Albania here, this is about the puppet state created by Italy (and latter reorganized by Germany). It has nothing to do about the freedom fighters that established new Albania at the end of WW2. More Croats supported communist guerrilla than puppet government, but that government is listed here. Please do not remove puppet Albanian Kingdom from this page.--N Jordan (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

as I have pointed out on the Allies of World War II article talkpage. The quote LupinoJacky gives above (Paris Peace conference documents Page 802 ) is from the record of the Albanian Delegations memorandum proposing a change to the draft treaty. It is not a cite for the final treaty text itself and given the qualifier "for the purposes of this treaty" (nor the rest of the memorandum preceding it) does not establish the Albanian war role or relationship with the Allies. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear GraemeLeggett, The Banner talk, N Jordan The treaty peace conference (establishing articles and amendments) was held in 1946, while the treaty signed in 1947. We have a source stating an amendment to include Albania as Ally in 1946 and a source stating that it was included as ally in 1947 (we have an encyclopedic source stating the inclusion of Albania, see Allied page), which implies acceptance of the amendment. So unless you have a source explicitly stating that the Allies refuse the accept Albanian amendments I would not raise false alarms. A agree with you on the potential confusion of this citation, thanks for adding the comment, someone should look further into that particular point to clarify further. But that is not the main discussion here, the situation here is not that citation. Here we have an inclusion to the Axis forces by violating the inclusion criterion. The criterion of an Axis state is "Countries that Fought Against Allies". Does anyone you have any historic reference that indicate that an army of Albania fought against an army of Allies? Just having a pro-Axis puppet state does not imply an Axis force because the criterion is about those that Fought Against Allies (fighting is the key here), not those invaded by Axis, whose puppet governments supported Axis morally, economically (or in other non-combatant ways). As such, unless we provide sources (there are no such sources in the current description) that any official military army of Albania fought against Allies, then it cannot be inserted in this article, by definition. Furthermore we should NOT confuse official armies of states with individuals, or unofficial groups of pro-Axis fighters, because such groups existed in many Allied countries not listed here as Axis. Pro-Axis fighting groups existed in Soviet Union Russian Liberation Army, in Greece Security Battalions, in Belgium Walloon Legion, in China Reorganized National Government of the Republic of China, in Netherlands 23rd SS Volunteer Panzer Grenadier Division Nederland, in Norway Hirden, in Yugoslavia 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian), in Britain British Free Corps. In the case of Albania there was no official army that sided against Allies in any battle, only the unofficial individuals of Skanderbeg (military unit). So, if we follow the principle that "Albania was Axis because there were some unofficial Albanians fighting for Axis", then Soviet Union, Greece, Belgium, China, Netherlands, Norway, Yugoslavia, Great Britain should be inserted as Axis country too. However, I strongly believe referring to official fighting armies, not unofficial combatant groups. What do we do then? Should we stick to the status-quo definition of Axis state (Countries that FOUGHT Allies) clarified in this article, or do we invent personal definitions of what an Axis state we think was? LupinoJacky (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Because, and this is the rub of the matter, in Belgium, the Soviet Union, Greece, China etc, the official, recognized state (and the vast majority of the population) did not side with the Axis. Their legal governments were on the Allied side, participated with volunteers abroad and resistance forces in the fight, signed the Atlantic Charter, and were founding members of the United Nations. The collaborationist governments established lacked legitimacy, support, and any existence independent of the occupation regime, which is why they collapsed immediately after. Albania, like it or not, was subsumed into Italy in 1939, and until at least 1943 very much toed the line. For a variety of reasons, there simply was no alternative Albanian government other than the Fascist one in Tirana, which would have declared itself part of the Allies and rivalled the Tirana government for legitimacy. That is not to say that all Albanians were Hitler's henchmen, but that official Albania, in so far as it could be said to exist after 1939, was firmly in the Axis camp, because it had no choice. Constantine ✍ 11:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As I previously said, you are providing a personal definition of an Axis state. Let us not divert the focus of the topic. The formal definition here is "Countries that FOUGHT against Allies". Do you have any reference involving any official army of Albania against Allies? If not, Albania does not satisfy the inclusion criterion for being mentioned as an Axis force and should be removed from here. LupinoJacky (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Erm, no, you are providing a personal definition here by positing that only active participation defined membership in the Axis. This may seem reasonable, but in Albania's case it obscures the elephant in the room that you choose to ignore: Albania was in personal union with a founding member of the Axis, and the country's administration was fully subsumed in that of its hegemon. Hence, Albania was legally and de facto part of the Axis as much as Italy was. That is why Greece notoriously had a state of war still extant with Albania until recently: the moment Italy declared war, the puppet "Albanian Kingdom" did the same. Even if Albanian units had not participated in any offensive action (and they did, both against Greece and in occupation duties in Kosovo), Albania was de jure a member of the Axis from the outset. Constantine ✍ 13:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The definition of this page is "Countries that FOUGHT against Allies" and in a war the term FIGHTING is a clearly defined concept, not prone to ambiguities. Either you provide sources that indicate that an official army of Albania fought against Allies, or remove it from here. (The rest, such as confusions between invaded countries, puppet governments and de-jure governments, are POVs not relevant to the principle of inclusion as an Axis force). So unless there are proofs of an official military involvement of Albania against Allies, I propose to remove it from this article, as a clear violation of the criterion for inclusion as an Axis force, following the clear definition at the top of this article. LupinoJacky (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Fighting, as in taking part in the Uprising in Montenegro and the efforts of 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian), including a raft of atrocities. They were clearly fighting against the Allies. The Banner talk 17:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

NO OFFICIAL army or fighting unit representing the state of Albania took part in the Uprising in Montenegro as the article itself clearly indicates (please read the article you are pointing to), as for the other link, I think you don't know the difference between the term "Albanians" and the Republic of Albania (Albanians refer to people of Albanian ethnicity and language group that are citizens of multiple countries as Albania, Kosovo (province of Yugoslavia during WW2), Montenegro, Macedonia, Greece). The 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian) was a GERMAN SS unit composed by ethnic Albanians individuals living in KOSOVO, which at the time was a province of the state of Yugoslavia and has NO OFFICIAL relation to the state of Albania. Citing the article "In February 1944, Hitler approved the creation of an Albanian Waffen-SS division that was to serve only inside Kosovo". Both your links have NO relation to the state of Albania. Since till now, no-one could bring any link between any official fighting army of Albania against Allies, it violates the principle of inclusion (clarified above) and should be removed. It seems Albania has been added here without any source of military involvement against Allies, in violation of the principle of inclusion, and as a POV of few users (which is a wrong procedure). LupinoJacky (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean with "official"? The Banner talk 19:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

My polite friend, this is the definition of official http://www.thefreedictionary.com/official LupinoJacky (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you agree with the fact that the Italian supported puppet government was de official and de facto government of Albania and that King Zog, although de jure the ruler of Albania, was not leading an official government (or any government, I could not find evidence of a King Zog led government). The Banner talk 19:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Albania was invaded by Italy in 1939 and ceased to exist as an independent state. The puppet government you refer to was not internationally recognized as the legitimate government of Albania, which is proven by the fact that (citing US government's official website) "U.S.-Albanian diplomatic relations, first established in 1922, were interrupted when Italy took control of Albania’s foreign affairs in 1939" . Sources show that this unrecognized government was an entity UNDER OCCUPATION and not recognized as the legitimate representative of Albania in international terms during WW2. I would like to add that unrecognized puppet governments existed in many other Allied nations, such as Greece, Yugoslavia, France, etc ... In addition, the unrecognized puppet government you are referring to, did NOT militarily take part in any battle against Allies through any official army units. In fact, this government did NOT EVEN HAVE AN ARMY as the only army present was the occupational forces of Italy (citing historic sources) "The Albanian armed forces were subsumed in the Italian military, Italian advisors were placed inside all levels of the Albanian administration, and the country fascisticized" . Furthermore, in 1943 the unrecognized puppet government even declared neutrality in terms of fighting, citing the referenced independent history book ): "5 November 1943, Government of Rexhep bey Mitrovica, under German occupation, declares Albania's neutrality in the war". In that perspective, for me the issue is CLEAR and I strongly recommend the immediate removal of Albania from this page, as no official army of Albania fought against Allies, violating the principle of inclusion defined in this article as "Axis = States that FOUGHT Allies". I agree to QTeuta that the correct place to mention this add this info is Collaborationist. Let us wait for a day or so, and then if still there would be no fact stating a military fight of Albania against Allies, then we can remove the section Albania from here. LupinoJacky (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

From the same book of Robert Elsie: "1941 (...) 29 June: Greater Albania proclaimed by Benito Mussolini" This suggests Mussolini did see Albania as a separate state and made it even bigger than it was before the war. And of course: recognized the de facto government: the Italian supported puppet government. The Banner talk 22:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Italy was the country that invaded Albania, created a puppet state under its control and subsumed the soldiers to the Italian army. To say Italy recognized the puppet state it created itself is (sorry to say) in-genuine. Moreover, it does not have a relation to the points raised above. Please let us discuss the crutial point: Was there any official military of Albania that fought against Allies during WW2, yes or no? I say NO, and I wait for those who say yes to give me sources that i) an official Albanian army existed during WW2, 2) that this Army fought against Allies. LupinoJacky (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess that this article is also worth reading Albanian Kingdom (1939–43). Especially the section "Albania at war" is interesting because in the paragraph about the Greco-Italian War is states: But the Albanian army under the command of colonel (later general) Prenk Pervizi[25] abandoned the Italians in combat, causing a major unraveling of their lines. Rather interesting remark about a non-existing army... The Banner talk 22:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Even so, it apparently didn't involve in action( which doesn't fulfill the criteria). I don't get your point, do you want to claim all Occupied (i) countries as being part of the AXIS? Because that is a lot of work to do.QTeuta (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

Let me draw some parallels, the Royal Netherlands Army is the Official army of Netherlands, a group of Dutch individuals fighting abroad, are not the official army of the Netherlands. The Scanderbeg division is stated at the Wiki page of Collaborationist. Such groups and government existed in all countries. QTeuta (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

Albania was a disputed territory during the war. Italy's rule was not recognised by the Allies, yet no legal government was recognised by them either. In any case, Albania had no independent foreign relations at all and no armed forces not integrated into the Italian. It makes no sense to call Albania either an Axis or an Allied power. It was an occupied territory without an internationally recognised government. Many Albanians made common cause with the Axis, and many others with the Allies. 216.8.142.143 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Albanian "official" forces were stationed in occupied territories in Yugoslavia (Kosovo, Western Macedonia, Eastern Montenegro) and during the entire period fought both Allied forces in Yugoslavia: the communist Partisans and monarchist Chetniks. So that pretty much clears the case. Albania was an Axis country that even gained much by being part of the Axis and expanded its territory. And even the recognition of communist Albania as Allied is very questionable, they were participants of the Paris Conference very much by insistence of ONLY Yugoslavia, and participating doesn't make them automatically Allied. So Albania should definitely stay in the Axis list, and its inclusion in the Allies list is highly questionable and weak, and even if included, it needs to have a proper indication next to it that only became Allied at the end of the war. If you want ignore my comments, but tonight or tomorrow I will bring sources indicating Albanians fighting Allied forces in Yugoslavia and that will settle pretty much the case. FkpCascais (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, and in addition a UFO just passed close to my window, Elvis Presley was sitting on it :)... Please, since two days we keep demanding historic references indicating an involvement and still users post here opinions formulated with PLAIN WORDS. Can you provide any HISTORIC REFERENCE (historic book, historic proceedings, encyclopedia, etc ...), indicating that any Albanian "OFFICIAL" forces were FIGHTING against Allies in WW2? LupinoJacky (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are sources confirming Albania belongs to the list of Axis states:

• One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups by James Minahan (pag. 33): "The Albanian government, controlled by Italy, declared war on the Allies in 1940, but later, guerrilla groups formed to fight the fascists, particularly following the occupation of the region by German forces in 1943." This is exactly the point LJ refuses to admit. There was resiatance to Axis, but Albanian state was Axis allied, no doubts about it.
• War in the Balkans by Richard C. Hall (pag. 9): Talking about invasion of Greece "The invading Italian army contained some Albanian formations." and we have a picture of the Albanian troops under Italian command.
• Historical diccionary of Albania by Robert Elsie (pag. 178 section "Relations with Greece": "on 28 August 1985, the state of war that still officially existed between the two countries was finally declared over". reffering to the state of war when Axis dominated Albanian government declared war to Allied Greek government.
• Albania in the Twentieth Century, A History: Volume III by Owen Pearson (pag. 62): "...when the Axis troops entered Athens, an Albanian contingent paraded with the other conquering troops."
• Bringing the Dark Past to Light by John-Paul Himka and Joanna Beata Michlic (pag. 33): " Referring to the members of wartime Albanias Axis-allied governaments..."

There are more, just lost in all this discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for Vichy France

Move from contraversial cases to client states. Vichy France wasn`t de facto France that was in war with Axis. Its a regime made by Axis powers to make easier control of French colonies, it included facist racist policies and was disbanded as soon as some French fleet was in risk to deflect to Allies and as soon Allies invaded ex French colonies in France. Vichy regime in Indochina collaborated with Empire of Japan.

Quite a clear case.

Also, contraversial case of Yugoslavia could be deleted. Tripartite pact was signed in circumastances where France and Poland (Yugoslav allies) have fallen to Axis, but because of gouverment coup d etat it was never in effect. Axis invaded Kingdom of Yugoslavia, so in effect, it was never ally of Axis.

However, articles on client states such as Independent state of Croatia or Gouverment of salvation in Serbia should remain. Rasvoja (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Government of National Salvation

Government of National Salvation should be listed as Client State. It was a puppet state. 173.56.116.63 (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Page name capitalization

As the page for the Central Powers of WWI is fully capitalized, shouldn't the page for the Axis powers be fully capitalized too? Both are historically accurate terms for primary military alliances in the World Wars and are proper nouns, hence they should both be fully capitalized (this would also introduce continuity in the article titles). Am I missing something? If so, please explain. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Unlike with the "Central Powers", the WW2-era alliance itself was called the "Axis", the countries that participated in it were the "Axis powers". Constantine ✍ 11:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Vichy

Vichy France was not an Axis belligerent.

The resistance against the invasion of several of its colonies was an example of armed neutrality. Not fighting would have been a violation of neutrality, like for instance Belgium accepting to let the German army in 1914 through would have been a violation of neutrality.

Therefore Vichy should not be listed as a combatant. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Iraq

Iraq was only belligerent for one month under a coup. the semi-elected government had supported the British (whether it really wanted to or not, doesn't matter) throughout the war. It seems inaccurate that Iraq is listed as axis in the map and in the lists of axis countries. Bbb244 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Italian Colonies?

Ethiopia was occupied briefly (for four-five years) as France was occupied by Nazi Germany for four years. Italy never maintained full control of Ethiopia in those five years of occupation, there was armed resistance through out the period. It is understandable why European writers are biased in their characterization of the situation to cover or compensate the fact that Italy was defeated by Ethiopia and forced to accept its independence during the first Italo-Ethiopian war. In conclusion, Ethiopia was occupied, never colonized. The same goes for France — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldad8 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, Ethiopia was an Italian colony. See here: Italian East Africa.

Barjimoa (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

that "colony" was not recognized internationally. It was just a seizure. Rjensen (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it really necessary?

Can someone supply me with a reason why is this segregation between "Major" and "Other" necessary? Weren't they all sovereign members of the Axis? Didn't they all fight? Didn't they all make sacrifices? Putting a country in the "Others" category is like saying "Yeah, who cares about them anyway?", which is a very wrong mentality. Also, why the only categories are "major" and "minor"? Couldn't you just call them "medium", instead of this two-gear diarrhea? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the Axis...

User:E-960 I think you're making a mistake here. These are the Axis Powers, not the Tripartite Pact. As in there were more than 3. Does it hurt to show a bit of recognition of, ahem, the "others"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.116.79 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:E-960 Stop. No, okay? NO! No more! No more ignorance, no more dismissiveness, no more cutting corners, no more sacrificing accuracy for commodity, or to maintain a stupid tradition! The Axis...meant more than Germany Italy and Japan! Why you don't want to accept this historical fact, I have no idea! Hungary basically founded the Axis, came up with the idea for it, while Romania, through it's oil industry, was pretty much the heart/engine of the Axis! And they made huge contributions, Romania alone committed 600,000 troops! How on Earth can you even THINK of calling that minor or negligeable or whatever?! Just stop! Either let the name of the Axis be written in the languages of ALL it's sovereign, willing members, or let it be only in English!

Axis Powers meant Germany, Japan and Italy. You can refer to this link [2] for the Holocaust Encyclopedia, maintained by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. In any case if you want to make a change pls disscuss first instead of edit warring, the material you are disputing is long standing and has been previously agreed to. --E-960 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

E-960 Your disrespect for the Axis allies is really starting to disgust me. Remember: the Axis lost the war due to their mentality, treating their allies like objects, and you're continuing with this mentality, all of you! I don't care about your agreement, as long as it's wrong! Actually, it's downright RACIST! 2 months ago, justice was made! The name of the Axis became written in all of it's languages! What's your problem with that? Of all, don't you see that you're the only one against it, against the just thing to do? Against a broader view? Because of people like you, most other people GENUINELY think that the Axis was formed of only these 3 countries! Why are you dismissive? Why are you ignorant? Why are you disrespectful? Why are you RACIST?! No, until you reach a "consensus" that is just for ALL, I will delete all the native names! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.126.74 (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Because we are possibly dealing with a contributor who is using a dynapic IP; this is a comment regarding all those Infobox edits. Please refrain from edit warring or you will be blocked. If you want to make any changes to long standing text please discuss first instead of arbitrarily and repeatedly making changes. I myself feel that the Axis Powers + 3 native names should say as is, no need to change. --E-960 (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

E-960 I'm sorry, but who the Hell are you? No really, why does what you say should matter whatsoever? You don't even deserve to kiss the foot of even the most cowardly Romanian at Stalingrad! You don't even have a fraction of his value! At least he went there, he made HISTORY, he didn't butcher it, simplify it and cut corners like you do! You're a nobody, yet you think you can judge the role and contribution of others! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.126.74 (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, pls refrain from edit warring and personal attacks; and refer to this link [3] for the Holocaust Encyclopedia, in reference to the subject matter. --E-960 (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

E-960 I have a just a simple question: Why is it bad, or "unconstructive", to add the name of the other members of the Axis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.126.74 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 Hmm...since when being historically accurate is called "vandalizing"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.126.74 (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:E-960 User:Jim1138 Look: There were 2 sides in the war, ok? The Allies, and the Axis. The Axis comprise all those who fought against the allies. ALL! Which also included Romania, Hungary and so on. And if you're gonna put the name of the Axis in all it's native names...then freaking DO SO! Also you can't argue that Germany controlled Romania, or even Bulgaria, because if it did, they would have not changed sides to begin with! Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Thailand were all sovereign members of the Axis, just like Germany Italy and Japan! There is no reason to not add their native versions of the group they were part of! Other than being a lazy racist. What, you want only those 3 because that's the "accepted" way? I'm sorry, but assuming that the Axis meant only those 3, is stupid. And stupidity must be corrected. I thought Wikipedia was meant to counter stupidity, not to encourage it, like it's doing with the native names in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.121.8 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Thailand to co-belligerent

Since Thailand never signed the Tri-Partite Pact, but rather a bilateral alliance with Japan, it was not an Axis state but a co-belligerent. The Axis was a military alliance bound by the Tri-Partite Pact.128.250.0.205 (talk)

Agreed. Furthermore, the Thai ambassador to the United States refused to deliver his government's declaration of war, maintaining that it had been given under Japanese duress, and remained a credentialed representative of the Thai government in Washington. The situation in Thailand was thus much more ambiguous than suggested by simply listing it as an Axis power. --Yaush (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to deal with the controversial cases

Hello fellow editors, I want to propose to edit 2 of the several controversial cases: Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The relation between Soviet Union and Axis was quite clear. During invasion of Poland, they both fought Polish forces, there are plenty of photos and books proving this. IMHO, the role of Soviet Union in invasion of Poland was quite similar to that of Iraq in May 1941. They fought one or more allied powers in military collaboration with at least one Axis power, but without formally participating in the Tri-Partite Pact. If Iraq was an Axis co-belligerent for its role in the Anglo-Iraqi war, then Soviet Union was to be the same for its joint invasion of Poland with Nazi Germany and Slovakia. The case for Yugoslavia was about the nature of international treaty. The legitimate government of Yugoslavia signed the Tri-Partite Pact, so from the view of international law or law in general, even if Yugoslavia participated in the Pact for a mere second, in that mere second it was a member to the Pact, thus a member of Axis powers. Neither its subsequent coup and withdrawl from the Pact, nor the fact that Yugoslavia did not participate in any of Axis military operations, change the fact that in the legal sense, Yugoslavia joined Axis for several days. 120.21.28.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslavia invaded Poland in Sept 1939? Says who? rs please Rjensen (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not say Yugoslavia invaded Poland, I said Nazi Germany, Soviet Union and SLOVAKIA invaded Poland. 120.21.19.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Slovakia was a German puppet with a very small army operating under German direction. Not a notable major factor. Rjensen (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Slovakia was a minor puppet, but the point here is not about Slovakia. It's about Yugoslavia which joined Tri-Partite Pact for a few days.131.170.5.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will proceed with editing within a few days.120.21.119.150 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What are the RS that list the Soviet Union as a "co-belligerent"? While looking for ["soviet union" "axis" 1939 co-belligerent] I found Finland so described, as well as here, here and here but not the Soviet Union.

See also the example of a discussion on the Soviet Union from The Columbia History of the 20th Century (while invasion of Poland is discussed, the term "co-belligerent" is used to describe 1941, as is "Soviet Union became a co-belligerent on the Allied side". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

By definitions of co-belligerent in the dictionaries, such as:

"a state or individual that cooperates with, but is not bound by a formal alliance to another in waging war."

"One, such as a nation, that assists another or others in waging war, usually without entering a formal alliance." etc.

Soviet Union clearly fulfills the definition of "co-belligerent" for its role in the joint invasion (with Nazi Germany) of Poland. We don't necessarily have to find a source saying exactly the words "SU was a co-belligerent...", we just need to find the definition of the term "co-belligerent" and check if SU satisfies it. Similarly, the current Wikipedia article on list of sovereign states says "The dominant customary international law standard of statehood is the declarative theory of statehood, which was codified by the Montevideo Convention of 1933." The list contains 200+ states, do we need to find 200+ reliable sources saying exactly as "Suriname meets the DTS", "Burkina Faso meets the DTS", "PNG meets the DTS"... to prove they're sovereign states? Again similarly, there are maybe millions of famous people covered by Wikipedia, do we need to find millions of reliable sources saying exactly "xxx is a human", "yyy is a human" etc. to prove that they are humans and not extraterrestrials? Surely no!131.170.5.4 (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, what is the RS saying exactly "Iraq was an Axis co-belligerent"? The only sources I could find saying such are Wikipedia and online posts, which by themselves are not RS at all. 131.170.5.4 (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

References

To have Soviet Union included in the section "Co-belligerent state combatants", an editor needs to present WP:RS that describe the Soviet Union as being a co-belligerent of the Axis. See examples for Finland that I listed above. Otherwise, it's WP:OR in my understanding. Please also see the note I left on the IP address User_talk:131.170.5.5 -- you might want to consider registering for an account to make things easier. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine, if it's the Wikipedia rule that meeting definition doesn't count and only exact words in a book deemed reliable counts, then so be it.

Besides, please do not leave message on the IP talk page. It's changing to different IPs every time. All the other edits on that page of that IP were not made by me. 120.21.155.214 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I also moved Yugoslavia to Axis members for it's signing of the Tri-Partite Pact. However, I can not find any "RS" saying exactly Yugoslavia was an Axis member, only books saying Yugoslavia joined Tri-Partite Pact and books saying Axis powers constituted those signing this Pact. By the "RS" standard, you might want to revert it as well. Please feel free to do so. 120.21.155.214 (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disproportionate amount of information

No really, even without swearing (sorry about that), not only that you refuse to call the Axis in the native names of ALL it's members, and make this painful segregation that nobody needs or wants, between "major" and "minor" (It really doesn't matter, they were all sovereign members of the alliance and signed the pact), but you also largely neglect their history and how they came to be part of the Axis and contributions! You can write about Romania and Hungary each as much as you did for Germany, if you would really care. But you don't because they "don't matter". Let me tell you something: Hungary practically created the Axis (came with the idea for it) while Romania powered it! There would have been no Eastern Front without Romanian oil! These two at least, were just as important as the main 3! In fact, I dare say that Romania was even more important than Italy, at least Romania was never made a German puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.123.74 (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

do many historians make these strange claims? Not that I have seen. It's best to start with some solid books (eg Gerhard L. Weinberg, A world at arms: A global history of World War II Cambridge University Press, 1995.) and follow their line of argument. Rjensen (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

But they don't care...Why you research only historians from the West when dealing with countries from the East? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.123.74 (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable sources from anywhere by all means quote them. Britmax (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

How about the words of Hitler himself? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8raDPASvq0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.123.74 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the fact that Hitler thought the oil fields important does not make Romania an important member of the Axis. Britmax (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC).

And, even if you want to ignore that, Deletant notes: "Romania retained her sovereignty throughout the period of the alliance [with Nazi Germany]. [...] Antonescu had, of course, his own country's interests uppermost in his mind, but in following Hitler, he served the Nazi cause."[269] He describes Romania's contribution to the war as that of "a principal ally of Germany", as opposed to a "minor Axis satellite." Also according to Hitler, if you actually bothered to check the link I posted, Hitler essentially implies that no Romania in the Axis equals no Eastern Front. And as the Eastern Front was the main front of the war, and Romania was the base of it's existence, I just don't know why you don't accept the fact that Romania was major. Because it was. It really, really was. Also, as your article blatantly states, Hungary essentially created the Axis, at least at the concept level. And what is the worst, is that, for 50 days, there actually was the name of all the Axis members written in the infobox. But, apparently, someone thought that that little bit of respect and consideration was "too much", that it was not "constructive contribution", that it was "disrupting". Yeah, apparently, being fair and just to everyone's implication and contribution is "disrupting" and "unconstructive" all of a sudden! Look, I don't think that I'm absurd, that I'm asking for the impossible here, when all I ask is for you to acknowledge that the Axis meant more than the Tripartite Pact. "Minor" or not, their contribution was crucial. If not anything, then at least revert to the previous version, with 7 native names.

Germany, Italy and Japan were considered major powers within the Axis, while others were not. When Hitler discussed the global spheres of influence, he discussed it with Italy and Japan, not with Romania, Hungary etc.. The Tri-Partite Pact was so named because of the 3 major signatories, and its name was not changed after the inclusion of the other states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.211 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And here's why Romania and Bulgaria dumped the Axis, among other reasons. "If we don't even exist for you, then why should we help you?" Also, "major" does not equal "only", "minor" does not equal "non-existent". Why can't you understand that?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.123.74 (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that minor=non-existent, or major=only, except yourself in your quote. 120.21.208.45 (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Still, you could say MUCH more at the sections of Romania, Hungary and even Bulgaria! You didn't go into detail, why they did it, how they did it, about their financial resources, industry, goals! And that's why you are racist pieces of shit! It doesn't matter that they were not Great Powers, do you hear? It doesn't, freakin, matter! They were sovereign members of the alliance, as in joined by their own will, just like the main 3!

That's a pretty fascist and uneducated way of making a comment. Whoever disagrees with your delusional points, i.e. basically everyone except yourself, is a "racist xxxxxxx". Though, it's always funny to see how desperately a ultranationalist and fascist yells and barks to exaggerate the role played by his country to satisfy the pathetic little ego. Romania is a respectful and beautiful country but here she is doubly disgraced by exaggerating her role in the group of defeated fascist regimes known as the Axis, and by somebody so rude and disgusting ostensibly speaking on her behalf. 120.21.207.50 (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Norway

Norway should be included as a client state. (213.122.144.241 (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC))

Sorry, whose client state and based on what reliable source? Britmax (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Norway was a German client state under Vidkun Quisling from 1940 to 1945. (165.120.184.91 (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC))