| Revision as of 00:21, 22 March 2008 editDuckDodgers21.5 (talk | contribs)28 edits →Blatant American(our victors dictate history) Propaganda← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:36, 20 December 2024 edit undoHMSLavender (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers61,411 editsm Reverted edits by 2403:4800:9462:4101:E2CE:4952:F43D:4336 (talk) (AV)Tags: AntiVandal Rollback |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Hatnote|'''Misplaced Pages requires that ], for this reason no country will be listed in the infobox as an Axis power unless ] on the topic of WW2 can be presented explicitly describing them <u>as an Axis power</u>. If you want a country to be included in the infobox, please find sources to support this before opening a discussion.'''}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance=|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=b}} |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
|class=Start |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=high}} |
|
|Japanese-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=High}} |
|
|German-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C |
|
|WWII-task-force=yes |
|
|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |
|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |
|
|B-Class-1=no |
|
|B-Class-1=no |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
|B-Class-4=yes |
|
|B-Class-4=yes |
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|B-Class-5=yes|nested=yes}} |
|
|B-Class-5=yes |
|
|
|Japanese-task-force=yes |
|
{{WPJ |
|
|
|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
|German-task-force=yes |
|
|
|Italian-task-force=yes |
|
|
|WWII-task-force=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=high|milhist=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hungary|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Austria|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Slovakia|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Croatia|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Albania|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Romania|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Finland|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Thailand|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Former countries}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=high}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
{{to do}} |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|
|
|
|counter = 13 |
|
{{archive box| |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Axis powers/Archive %(counter)d |
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Global map requested}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2024 == |
|
== The Soviet Union? == |
|
|
|
|
|
It could be said, that up to Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union was part of the Axis. They invaded eastern Poland and was cooperating with the Germans until 22 June 1941. I think this article should reflect that. --] 11:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Relations between countries were quite shallow in the 1930s. For example, the Nazis had good relations with ] until 1941 and condemned the ]. No one would say that China was part of the Axis though. The Soviets offered to support Czechoslovakia in 1936 but lacked a common land border and were obstructed by Romania. Britain, France and Poland co-operated in the partition of Czechosloakia but no one in their right mind would say they were part of the Axis. The Soviets supported the democratically-elected Spanish government in the ] against Germany and Italy, while no other state did anything. Stalin had idiotically ] and needed some breathing space in which to rebuild the Red Army. The ] and Soviet "co-operation" with Germany for less than two years in 1939-41 can be seen as an aberration, resulting from the short-sightedness and failures of the (future) Allies (including the Soviets), rather than any natural affinity between the Soviets and Axis countries. ] | ] 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think that USSR should be mentioned. USSR wasn't officially member of axis(and article should mention that) but Molotov-Ribbendrop pact(which practically directly caused the start of war), its participation in invasion of Poland and ] which seriously weakened effect of allied naval blockade are importnant enough for haveing "Case of Soviet Union" in article like Spain and Denmark have.--] 13:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Than why not "case of the USA"?--] 13:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Staberinde, the Molotov-Ribbendrop pact would not have happened if Britain and France had been prepare to work with Stalin before 1939. But they weren't. The Soviets were't ready for war with German in 1939 --- they weren't even ready in mid-1941 -- so the pact was a matter of survival. If there were any evidence that the Soviets had the same intention in invading Poland that Germany did, then I would be inclined to agree with you. By invading Poland, ''after the German invasion'', the Soviets ensured that the Germans were several hundred kilometres further from the Soviet border than they would have been otherwise. I would compare the Soviet invasion to the ] in 1942. Had the Portuguese or Timorese put up any resistance then the Australians and Dutch would also have been placed in the position of killing people in a war of aggression. ] | ] 14:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
USSR were not a member of the Axis. It was a separate military action and was treated as such by the allies. Even though their actions were condemned by the Allies there was no aggression between the Allies and the USSR. If the USSR had been considered at the time to be members of the Axis then France and Britain would have declared war on the USSR as well as on Germany. ] 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That's not true. It had nothing to do with the false term 'Axis'(I used to believe in the term until I read the other criticisms and proof in the discussion section under Tripartite Pact). |
|
|
If it were true we would have declared war on Italy when Germany invaded Poland and we declared war on Germany. We didn't. |
|
|
In fact, Italy did not declare war on Poland. I was surprised to learn that Mussolini was actually trying to the last minute to prevent Hitler from invading Poland. |
|
|
|
|
|
The real reason we didn't declare war on the USSR despite the Nazi-Soviet Pact clearly dividing up Poland together was because we cowardly(though not like we had much choice) pointed out that when we wrote up the French-Polish-British alliance 'to secure and guarantee the sovereignty of Poland' we actually put the word Germany in the treaty. That's why we told the Poles we wouldn't declare war on Stalin for exactly the same reasons we claimed to declare war on Hitler. |
|
|
|
|
|
It had nothing to do with the term 'Axis'.] 04:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Grant, Australian-Dutch invasion of Portuguese Timor in 1942 is no way compareable with soviet invasion of Poland. Portugese Timor was small practically undefended colony, Poland was at that time probably 5th or 6th in strenght at Europe. Also I really can't understand your logic. Molotov-Ribbendrop pact itsselfly very well proves Stalin's intentions to invade Poland from east. And pact clearly wasn't matter of survival for USSR as Hitler was not in position to fight 2 front war at 1939(even his capabilities for 1 front war were quite limited). |
|
|
:Rorank, Allies also didn't declare war on Spain and Denmark.(if i remember correctly they even never declared war on Vichy france). Still we have those countries in article.--] 18:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Staberinde, (1) There was no way for the Australians or Dutch to know for sure how the local population would react. Some Timorese hold Australia partly responsible for the 40-70,000 Timorese killed by the Japanese. Some Australians agree. The similarities are there. (2) You say: "pact clearly wasn't matter of survival for USSR as Hitler was not in position to fight 2 front war at 1939". He wasn't fighting on ''any'' front at all when the pact was signed. I would submit that '']'' was the major objective for the Nazis and war with Britain and France was a major inconvenience, albeit one which they thought could be overcome. Stalin was many things but he was not a fool and was not blind to this. ] | ] 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Then Stalin and Hitler divided eastern-europe with Molotov-Ribbendrop pact there was no war in europe, Poland was not yet invaded, USSR and Germany didn't have any common border, France and UK were not ready to allow Germnay into Poland, Poland itsselfly was quite big country. Portugese timor was small weakly defended colony which was on the way of already fastly advanceing japan. Completely uncompareable situations.--] 10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
While we are on the subject, we might also mention the hostilities between Japan and the Soviets in 1938-39. Another reason why they were not prepared for a war in the west in September 1939. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Actually Stab, the opposite could be the interpretation. |
|
|
The Ruskies actually spanked the Japs good at Lake Hasan(near Vladivostok) in July 1938 and again at Nomonhan on the Khalkhin-Gol river Mongolian/Manchurian border Zhukov actually used all Russia's brand new secret weapon, the T34. |
|
|
::::It was because of those to huge defeats that even the Jap right-wingers said 'screw that idea of war with Russia anymore' and that's proven in every history book from Liddel Hart in English to Slavinsky in Russian why the Japanese decided to say 'screw Germany, we'll make friends with Russia ourselves'. |
|
|
::::Wanna know why? Because Hitler signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact with Stalin while he knew the Japs and Ruskies were fighting in the Far East. Hell, if you and I were the Japs, we'd take that as the ultimate betrayal. Might as well have Britain sign a Non-Aggression Pact with the Japanese while listening to reports of the attack on Pearl Harbour. How would the Americans view that?] 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, there was a big difference between Poland's forces and the Portuguese forces in Timor; that is irrelevant in terms of why the Soviet and Australian-Dutch invasions of those countries occurred. It was only because of Portugals's military weakness in Asia, and the previously friendly relations between the Portuguese and their invaders that a Poland-type situation did not emerge. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I gotta agree with you there. The Atlantic Charter then Washington Conference that other author fudging the Tripartite Pact page uses to prove what defined us as the 'Allies' clearly says all nations and people, great and small. Saying someone doesn't count because they aren't a major power or have at least say what? 15 million people? that they don't count by rules of international law? That's exactly what Churchill and Roosevelt claimed their founding principles were AGAINST!] 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the fact remains that the USSR did not make any of the direct contributions that Spain, Denmark (etc) did to contribute to the Nazi war effort. ] | ] 02:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:USSR invasion of Poland was direct contribution to nazi war effort, it probably was more importnant then Danish and Spanish contributions combined. Also ] was very importnant for germany which lacked raw materials.--] 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::A trade agreement isn't a military alliance. By that measure Sweden's iron and access to its railways made it Germany's most important "ally". As for the rest, we will have to agree to disagree. ] | ] 09:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Yeah I agree. Grant, far worse than letting German bombers use Minsk and other airbases even before the Russians invaded, Stalin was giving Hitler all the grain, strategic metals and worse oil totally trumping our naval blockade we used to starve Germany to surrender in the First World War. ] 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I will make one last atempt to convince you that Portugese timor and poland can't be compared(it probably fails but atleast i will try). |
|
|
Portugese timor was small weakly defended colony of a neutral country, allies occupied it to prevent japanese landing there. Allied forces which occupied it fought aganist advanceing japanese. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now poland was attacked by soviet union in full agreement with germany. USSR and Germany cooperated during invasion, for example Lwow was under german siege but after soviet invasion German troops handed operations over to their new Soviet allies. Soviet invasion made polish ] plan useless. Also Nazis and Soviets had joint victory parade in Brest. 250,000 to 450,000 Polish soldiers were taken prisoner of war by the Soviets. |
|
|
Completely different situations, in Timor allies occupied portugese territory to avoid japanese occupation of area, in poland USSR fully cooperated with Germany in destroying polish resistance, agreement for divideing poland had been made already with Molotov-ribbendrop pact.--] 12:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''''That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail.''''' (W. Churchill, 1939.) It seems he was not too disappointed with this fact and did not see it as a help for Germany. The parade in Brest was not victory parade but a parade dedicated to replacing German administration with Soviet one. Allies' forces had many such "joint" parades in the Western Front with German forces when Germans surrendered. One can even find photos where British soldiers stay on a parade along with Germans, which does not give right to claim Britain to be ally of Germany.--] 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Great quote; that says it all. ] | ] |
|
|
|
|
|
There are many disputable cases about counting country as member of axis or not. As this article includes other cases like Denmark and Spain and allows reader to decide, then same should be done with USSR.--] 10:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Then why not USA?--] 09:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::How many allied nations USA invaded in cooperation with nazis?--] 09:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::National security makes for difficult and controversial decisions. As I have alluded with the case of Portuguese Timor, there are "invasions" and there are invasions. The U.K. and U.S. occupied Iceland. The Allies were not technically at war with Vichy France but still attacked forces on numerous occasions, such as the controversial ]. I doubt that there would have been any question of the USSR invading Poland if (1) the Germans had not already invaded or (2) Poland had sought a defence treaty with the USSR prior to Molotov-Ribbentrop. ] | ] 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::About 99% of all invasions in the world history(includeing german invasion of poland for example) could be justified as some kind of "national security need" so that is not a real argument(btw, argument that Stalin's deal with Hitler about divideing poland was neccessary security need of USSR can be strongly disputed).--] 10:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Some people here seem to be unaware of the fact that part of the definition of terms of the Nazi-Soviet Pact was the Soviet invasion and division of Poland.] 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
According to definition of "Axis power" here http://en.wikipedia.org/Axis_Powers Soviet Union (maybe other countries?) should be excluded from the list.] 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:You are breaking through open door. This article does not qualify USSR as axis power, it does not even qualify it as co-belligrent. It simply qualifies USSR as controversial case, mainly because of USSR participation at invasion of Poland.--] 09:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There is no debate. These are definitions of co-belligerent: |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
* ] - Co-belligerence is waging the war in cooperation against a common enemy without the formal treaty of military alliance. Co-belligerence is a broader and less precise status of wartime partnership as a formal military alliance. Co-belligerents may support each other materially, exchange intelligence and have limited operational coordination. The aims of war of co-belligerents may differ considerably. The term co-belligerence indicates remoteness between the co-belligerent parties, cultural, religious, ideological or otherwise, whereas alliance indicates a corresponding closeness. Co-belligerence may be perceived as a euphemism, where domestically or internationally awkward alliance is explained away. |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
The Soviet Union falls in there, regardless of motive. Unless you change the definition of co-belligerent, then this applies. ] 13:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::As was said in the ] article, what you just wrote is a classic case of "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" ]. Misplaced Pages is not in the business of publishing original research. "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. <b>"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.</b>"--] 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Can you give us a source which says the USSR was an ally before 1941? --] 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Nobody is saying that it was an ally before 1941.--] 14:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
First, I would stop using the term 'Axis' as if it were a real military alliance. Even if we assume it referred to the Tripartite Pact instead of the Rome-Berlin Pact only Mussolini claimed, it was obviously renegged upon by the Japanese even before Operation Barbarossa. |
|
|
|
|
|
Second, if I were a Pole or a Finn, I sure as held would perceive the Soviets as vastly more military allies of the Germans than say the Japanese. |
|
|
|
|
|
Even as a Brit. It was Moscow, not Tokyo, that was making Berlin all but immune to the Allied naval blockade of Berlin so successful in the previous war. |
|
|
|
|
|
But we live in a world where our leaders and media and historians can convince us to turn around from chasing the real culprits of America's 9/11 to go after someone else instead and still try to say we should believe it. |
|
|
|
|
|
When that guy wrote there was never any 'Axis Pact', i thought what a nut. But then I did some reading and despite how many of us say we think it should mean a Berlin-Rome-Tokyo military alliance, it's a falsehood too. |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the original poster of this piece. |
|
|
It's hard for a Pole watching Soviet troops invade your country just a step behind the Nazis and listen to the anglo-saxons say, 'nah, they're not the enemy, Japan is.' |
|
|
|
|
|
But then our historians still have the majority of us still believing Iraq was behind 9/11? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== There was no Axis Pact including Japan, just stick to accurate signed alliance titles instead == |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with teach. |
|
|
|
|
|
When wikipedia articles use the term 'propaganda' to describe the Japanese idea for the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere but of course doesn't use the word 'propaganda' to describe our British Commonwealth, Organization of American States, European Union or Atlantic Charter... we are only proving the criticism that English-Misplaced Pages is not an objective, unbiased source for information but instead a collection of our own propaganda view on even foreign topics. |
|
|
|
|
|
In my attempt to prove him wrong, I didn't even notice that the links I and the wiki authors here used to the Avalon Project supposedly from a Yale(American bias?) site, that the documents linked to are actually DRAFTS not the actual signed versions of the treaties and agreements. So those aren't 'proofs'. |
|
|
|
|
|
''We in English wikipedia have a great opportunity to present an internationally unbiased data base, where unlike our historians, we are not obligated to continue to propogate our own propagandic mis-representation of history to sell books or keep our jobs. So, comon wiki, help us out here.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
That being said, I agree, wikipedia should refrain from claiming Japan was part of any 'Axis Pact'. |
|
|
We've searched but can find no evidence that Japan signed a document titled 'Axis Pact' with Germany and Italy, <br />nor can I find any proof they signed any document agreeing to the re-naming of the 'Tripartite Pact' as 'Axis Pact' instead either. We even asked a teacher who, though Korean, could read and write Japanese, to help us look for such evidence and nothing. |
|
|
In fact, the more I tried to prove the opposite, the more I realized that even our own diplomats, when writing up the unconditional surrender documents signed by our enemies, did not use the term Axis in Japan or even Italy's surrenders. |
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the members of an organization signed a document agreeing to the naming/titling of their organization, then it is totally improper to refer to it by a prejudicial term. |
|
|
|
|
|
By refusing to correct the Japan/'Axis Pact' myth here, like we have corrected the 'Remember the Maine' as cause for the Spanish-American war, wikipedia is only fueling criticism English-wikipedia represents anglo-american biase rather than objective data. |
|
|
|
|
|
Just because someone else kept referring to Japan as being part of the Axis doesn't make it true. I don't see the author of the English Wiki page on Iran using the term 'Axis' on it. And I know I've been hearing/reading Iran referred to as part of the modern 'Axis', Axis of Evil in particular. So obviously Misplaced Pages English does uphold the rule not to allow authors not to represent nation's treaty/alliance titles. We appear to be more concerned at offending Iran than Japan here. |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems 'Axis Pact' was a war-time propaganda term, never the actual title of even the Tripartite Pact some claim. I've seen lots of links showing where we called Japan a member of the Axis, but like I said, the more I went around to try to prove that myself, I actually found the opposite. |
|
|
|
|
|
This would explain why even when forcing unconditional surrender terms on our enemies, while the signed documents spell out the term 'Allies' and members, nowhere uses the term 'Axis' not only with Japan, but to my surprise, not even with Italy who tried to coin the term in talks with Germany because Berlin and Rome were on the same longitudinal axis on your globe(go check). I've never found evidence for this author's claim that Japan officially agreed in writing to rename the Tripartite Pact as 'Axis Pact'. I can only find it referring to the relationship between Rome and Berlin only. |
|
|
|
|
|
Teach says we used it as a propaganda term to try to defend ourselves against the international, even domestic, opinion of 'Western Betrayal'. |
|
|
That, in the end, by pressuring Stalin to break his peace with Japan, stabbing them in the back no less than we called Italy for doing to France, that we were no better than our enemies. |
|
|
That the rules of law applied to everyone else but ourselves. |
|
|
That by the end of the war and our allying with the Soviet Union, MORE, NOT LESS people around the world lost their freedom. |
|
|
|
|
|
To forget that the reason we actually declared war on Germany was to defend Polish sovereignty, which in the end, we did not win. |
|
|
|
|
|
To forget the fact that not only did we not uphold the founding principles of our 'Allied' cause, |
|
|
<br />but that we actually encouraged the Soviet Union to violate the very principles and international law we were supposedly fighting for by violating her Neutrality Pact with Japan and 'stabbing her in the back' even while Japan was trying to use the USSR to negotiate a surrender to us no less. |
|
|
|
|
|
We must have nearly a dozen exchange students in our school from around the world. And even those from countries that fought even Japan, like Holland and China, told us on Remembrance Day that they aren't taught that Japan was part of the 'Axis'. Some aren't even taught the term 'Axis Pact' to my surprise. |
|
|
|
|
|
So let's prove to the world that we don't need to keep using our old propaganda like North Korea or other Stalinism to hide our historical mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
|
But then again, I've seen these authors repeatedly delete actual contrary quotes from English historical sources even encyclopedias, so I don't know anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''But maybe teach is right, and looking for objective information on wikipedia in regards to ww2 or Japan or them is like "looking for an objective piece on bears from Steven Colbert." Lol.''' |
|
|
<br />I want the teachers here to let us use wikipedia for our school-work, so comon dudes, cut out the biased documents here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and as for 'Western Betrayal', was and is the opinion that if we were serious and sincere about the 'Allied cause', international law, human rights and freedom, that we should have stood up to Stalin no less than we did Hitler. This wasn't just an opinion by ungrateful foreigners, but Churchill, Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur and the likes too. |
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to prove the opposite to myself, I asked a teacher who claimed to be a proud member of the US marines in Vietnam why, if as teach said, it was wrong to claim Japan was part of the 'Axis Pact', why it was still in our history books. He stunned me with his unexpected answer. He said, in his opinion, it came down to 2 major 'historical cover-ups/shames'. |
|
|
|
|
|
a) Especially after post-war images of Hitler's 'Final Solution' American historians wanted to cover-up the fact that America was not willing to declare war on Hitler even after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. |
|
|
|
|
|
b) The American Presidents were not as serious and sincere about the principles of the 'Allies' as Churchill was; and were too arrogant to admit it was the mistake of the century to trust and under-estimate Stalin and actually bribe him to enter the war against Japan resulting in us not only giving up half of Europe but half of Asia to communism as well. |
|
|
Leading to the Cold War of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
And he agreed with teach, by inaccurately linking the words Japan and 'Axis' we were also trying to cover-up the fact that by encouraging Stalin to attack Japan while still bound by their Neutrality Pact, we were promoting the worst violation of the same international law we were supposedly fighting the war for. |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe teach said it best when he said "the most dangerous people in the world are the ones who think they are the only ones in the world not victims of propaganda."] 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Axis powers|answered=yes}} |
|
::Quite a rant there... Who's "teach"? ] (]) 05:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Why is Iraq not listed in the infobox? They were a full-fledged member of the Axis. |
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Anglo-Iraqi_War |
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/1941_Iraqi_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat ] (]) 00:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> The FAQ at the top says {{tq|"Only the countries for which reliable sources have been found, describing the country unambiguously as a member of the Axis, should be included."}} As discussed previously, co-belligerents of the Axis are not considered members of the Axis and hence do not go in the infobox. The question of including Iraq in the infobox has also been discussed multiple times (see the archives), and consensus has also been against inclusion. ] (]) 23:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::so we add Finland and croatia but not iraq? |
|
|
::I don't get your logic here ] (]) 03:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::iraq is literally blue on the map on the allies article ] (]) 01:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Hi @]. On Misplaced Pages, facts that can be challenged (which definitely includes which states were Axis powers) need to be clearly supported by ]. Misplaced Pages, including the map on the page about the Allies, is not a reliable source. |
|
|
::::For Iraq, there is no source saying it was ever a member of the Axis powers. If we look at what the sources say, we can see that it is not clearly considered to have been an Axis power during the few months that Rashid Ali was in power. For example, points out that Germany and Italy had no desire to make deals with Arab states since Italy wanted the Middle East as part of its empire and Germany saw the Arab states as a distration from its upcoming invasion of the USSR. The source also states that no formal alliance was ever concluded. |
|
|
::::For Finland and Croatia, there are ample sources stating that they were members of the Axis powers which you can find in the article. For Iraq those sources don't appear to exist. If you are aware of a reliable source that clearly and unambiguously describes Iraq as a member of the Axis powers, please let us know. ] (]) 07:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Issues with the map of participants in the info-box == |
|
::Rants like these are the reason I left this article a year ago. This article seems to be a magnet for POV pushers, people preaching their fringe history "research" and nationalists who will argue to death against any amount of evidence. ] (]) 07:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the map of participants in the info-box, it contains inaccuracies: |
|
== Iran == |
|
|
I thought that Iran was part of the Axis powers, because the Allied Powers invaded Iran and Iraq in 1941. This was mostly done by the British and the Soviets.{{unsigned|87.195.12.169}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The USSR is listed as having switched sides from the Axis to the Allies, which is in between complete falsehood and utter lunacy. Neither the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact nor the joint-but-time-offset German-Soviet invasion of Poland ever made the USSR a member of the Axis, especially not de jure. |
|
:The Iran section was moved to ] a while back.--] (]) 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Ethiopia is listed as having switched sides, but how can a colonial government (Italian East Africa) "switch sides" when it was disbanded altogether and replaced with a British military administration? |
|
== Mexico? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If Ethiopia is listed as having switches sides, then Italy should have certainty been included in the list as well, but it was not. The situation with the Italian Social Republic complicates the matter, but since France is already dealt with separately (on the map) in terms of Vichy France and German-occupied France, the same could be done with Italy (showing the Italian Social Republic borders at establishment in blue, and the rest of Italy in blue but with a "switched sides from the Axis to the Allies" marker). |
|
I know Mexico wasent part of the Axis and probabley tried to stay Neutral, but do you think some Mexicans had relationships with ] and ]? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
] (]) 12:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Ethiopia went from being an Italian colony to one that had been liberated and Ethiopia's full sovereignty was restored with the signing of the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement in December 1944 (duing Ww2). ] (]) 13:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:We do not list the USSR as a member of the Axis. ] (]) 13:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::The map is garbage. It might well be better not to have it. ] (]) 10:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::This is not the first time problems with the map have been raised. Other discussions where problems with the map have been raised include: |
|
|
*:::*] |
|
|
*:::*] |
|
|
*:::*] |
|
|
*:::*] |
|
|
*:::*] |
|
|
*:::*]<br/> |
|
|
*:::For this reason I am removing the map as a ] move simply because it is not a good illustration for this article. ] (]) 13:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Don't care about the map, but this article cannot have the same lead image as ]. It will only further conflation. ] (]) 03:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::I'm fine with this change. If there were a colour poster or similar then that would be even better but I'm not aware of one. PS - , but we'd need a hi-res copy, and to be sure that it's free-to-use (it ''probably'' is, but that's not good enough). ] (]) 10:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 10:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Only Axis powers should be listed in the infobox in an article about the Axis powers == |
|
== Victors Dictate History Propaganda? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was an extensive discussion about why the infobox only included actual members of the Axis. It's now been changed back to its previous format without any discussion as far as I can see. This is not a Paradox game or online games forum like NationStates, we need <u>'''''sources'''''</u> to describe a country positively as having been <u>'''''one of the Axis powers'''''</u>, not whatever idea someone has just come up with on their own about what the Axis was.<br/> |
|
Although I'm teaching Russian communist era in history right now, I have noticed, over the decades, how historical fact changes as we study more and release more records hidden away, sometimes for embarassing rather than security reasons, by Secrecy Acts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second world war is almost certainly the most written-about subject in world history. If you cannot find a source explicitly stating that a country was one of the Axis powers (or similar language) then please consider that it may not have been an Axis power, and that your idea of what the Axis powers were does not match what reliable sources say about it. It is, in fact, not easy to find reliable sources that list the members of the Axis beyond Germany, Japan, and Italy, and NONE of the sources we've reviewed so far that do try to provide exhaustive lists of Axis members include the countries that people typically want to add to the infobox - they don't include Vichy France, they don't include the USSR, they don't include Iraq, they don't include Iran, they don't include Manchuria. However, they DO typically include Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, and Romania, and (less often) Croatia, Slovakia Thailand. You can review the sources that list Axis powers in the article, but the convenience of anyone reading this page, here's the main ones: |
|
I'm as white as they come but do notice a discernable 'victor' and anti-Japanese in particular, bias to these articles; as do those critics on the Tripartite Discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:* - This lists Albania, Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Romania, and Thailand. It discusses Croatia as well but is a bit ambiguous about whether it was an Axis member. It mentions Iraq but does not define it as having been a member of the Axis, but instead as a "puppet state" of the Allies. It explicitly describes Spain as having been neutral. There is no mention at all of Vichy France here. |
|
I did go out and purchase that overly expensive book by former Soviet then Russian historian Boris Slavinsky, translated and added to by English historian Geoffrey Jukes "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" 2005. I do agree, the fact these wiki-authors leave that out completely does seem suspiciously biased. It sure has revealing information. |
|
|
|
:* - this defines the Axis as including Germany, Italy, Japan, Croatia, Finland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. Notably it does not mention Thailand. It also does not mention Iraq, Vichy France etc. as Axis countries. |
|
|
:* - this book does contain a list as such, and primarily focuses on Europe, but the following countries are explicitly described as Axis powers throughout the book: Germany, Italy, Japan, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria. It is more equivocal about Slovakia and Croatia, describing them as puppet countries - this does not mean they were not Axis powers in the view of the author, but neither confirms that they were. There is no mention of Iraq, Vichy France, and the usual suspects, in the context of describing who was part of the Axis.<br/> |
|
|
I could understand someone, based on the Bowman reference, wanting to add Albania, but since this does not match what other sources say about Albania in WW2 I'm inclined not to. Similarly I could understand someone wanting to remove Thailand since only Bowman includes in their list, though other sources appear to support this (see the sources in the section about Thailand, including the Thai historical dictionary). I can even understand just limiting the Axis to Germany, Italy, and Japan since many books/articles do only talk about those countries as "the Axis". What I can't understand is constantly trying to add Iraq/Vichy/USSR/whatever without any sources at all. ] (]) 09:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Albania was invaded and occupied, Thailand was not. ] (]) 11:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
I won't go into all the reasons why, alot of effort went into the Tripartite Discussions to no avail obviously, but I agree these articles are biased and I'm amongst those teachers who don't allow students to use Misplaced Pages as a source for homework, especially in 'us vs we' topics either. |
|
|
|
::Generally agree Steve, but more to the point: no other source I've seen says Albania was a member of the Axis so Bowman seems an outlier here. ] (]) 10:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2024 == |
|
.] (]) 00:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Axis powers|answered=yes}} |
|
== Oxford Removes Japan from (the Axis) == |
|
|
|
] (]) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, I noticed that they removed kingdom of iraq from the axis states meanwhile after the success of the iraqi coup detat in 1941 Iraq joined the axis states, Someone who deleted the article of the kingdom of iraq in this page, So I hope you guys fix it and thank you for your service |
|
It is true. The Oxford Dictionary, published in the UK and New York, has taken Japan out of their definition of the Axis. |
|
|
|
Here the article for making it easy to copy and paste |
|
"Concise Oxford Dictionary: Tenth Edition Completey Revised" |
|
|
|
*{{flag|Kingdom of Iraq}}{{Efn|Co-belligerent of the Axis led by the ] which declared a ] against British rule. Backed by other Axis states in the region during what became the ].}} |
|
Hard-cover Page 93 |
|
|
|
:Do you have evidence that they joined the Axis? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 23:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
'''(the Axis) the alliance between Germany and Italy in the Second World War.''' |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 23:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2024 == |
|
When we asked Oxford why the change at a teacher's convention, we were told that it was found that there was no authenticated original documentation signed by the Japanese agreeing to the term 'Axis' as title of any activated alliance with Berlin and Rome. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|Axis powers|answered=yes}} |
|
I was also interested to learn that instead of Mussolini, it was actually Italian General Gombos, (who had died in October,1936) who first coined the phrase 'Axis' to refer to a Rome-Berlin alliance. Based on the fact Rome and Berlin sat on the same longitudinal axis on the globe. |
|
|
|
Add Oxford commas. ] (]) 15:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{notdone}} Not clear what the request is. Please mention the specific changes in a ]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 16:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Maps == |
|
When I found supposed documents in English on the web, we've never had a reply to our request for a copy of the original document they translated into English. We keep getting referred to other English documents but none have provided the supposed original documents in their languages signed by Japan, Germany and Italy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See ]. -- ] (]) 07:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
If someone can provide a link to an authenticated copy of a treaty signed by Japan officially named, or renamed 'Axis' actively allying itself to Germany and Italy please provide it. Then I can decide on a debate whether Oxford is wrong. Thank you.] (]) 07:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
There was an extensive discussion about why the infobox only included actual members of the Axis. It's now been changed back to its previous format without any discussion as far as I can see. This is not a Paradox game or online games forum like NationStates, we need sources to describe a country positively as having been one of the Axis powers, not whatever idea someone has just come up with on their own about what the Axis was.
The second world war is almost certainly the most written-about subject in world history. If you cannot find a source explicitly stating that a country was one of the Axis powers (or similar language) then please consider that it may not have been an Axis power, and that your idea of what the Axis powers were does not match what reliable sources say about it. It is, in fact, not easy to find reliable sources that list the members of the Axis beyond Germany, Japan, and Italy, and NONE of the sources we've reviewed so far that do try to provide exhaustive lists of Axis members include the countries that people typically want to add to the infobox - they don't include Vichy France, they don't include the USSR, they don't include Iraq, they don't include Iran, they don't include Manchuria. However, they DO typically include Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, and Romania, and (less often) Croatia, Slovakia Thailand. You can review the sources that list Axis powers in the article, but the convenience of anyone reading this page, here's the main ones:
I could understand someone, based on the Bowman reference, wanting to add Albania, but since this does not match what other sources say about Albania in WW2 I'm inclined not to. Similarly I could understand someone wanting to remove Thailand since only Bowman includes in their list, though other sources appear to support this (see the sources in the section about Thailand, including the Thai historical dictionary). I can even understand just limiting the Axis to Germany, Italy, and Japan since many books/articles do only talk about those countries as "the Axis". What I can't understand is constantly trying to add Iraq/Vichy/USSR/whatever without any sources at all. FOARP (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that they removed kingdom of iraq from the axis states meanwhile after the success of the iraqi coup detat in 1941 Iraq joined the axis states, Someone who deleted the article of the kingdom of iraq in this page, So I hope you guys fix it and thank you for your service
Here the article for making it easy to copy and paste
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why is country X included in the list of Axis countries in the infobox?
A1: Because reliable sources, cited in the article, describe it as an Axis country. If you think that a country presently included in this list should NOT be included in it, please describe why reliable sources do not support it being included here, and if possible provide sources backing up this position. Particularly in the case of Finland, this has been discussed many, many times, so please review the talk-page archive to see if you have any new points to raise on this topic.
Q2: Why is country X NOT included in the list of Axis countries included in the infobox?
A2: Only the countries for which reliable sources have been found, describing the country unambiguously as a member of the Axis, should be included. If you think a country should be added to the list, please provide reliable sources that clearly and unambiguously state that they were members of the Axis. Please note that particularly Vichy France, Iraq, Spain, the Soviet Union, and the various puppet-states of the Axis outside of the ones that are included in this list have been discussed a large number of times here, so please review the discussions before opening a new discussion to see if the point you want to make has already been discussed.
Q3: Why aren't only Tripartite Pact signatories included as Axis members in the infobox?
A3: Because this article is not about the Tripartite Pact, which has its own article. Similarly, it is also not about the Anti-Comintern Pact. Instead it is about the Axis, which reliable sources describe as having a membership different to that of the Tripartite Pact and the Anti-Comintern Pact.
Q4: Why aren't puppet states and colonies included as Axis members in the infobox?
A4: Some puppet states may be included as members of the Axis powers where there are reliable sources stating that this is what they were, however, where no source says that a country was a member of the Axis, simply having been a puppet state or colony of a member of the Axis is insufficient to make it a member of the Axis if reliable sources do not describe it as such.
Q5: Why are other states, that were not members of the Axis, discussed in the body-text of the article?
A5: States and movements that had notable relations with the Axis, for example states the leadership of which gave serious consideration to joining the Axis, should be discussed to the extent relevant. Relevance should be decided in consensus with other editors - if in doubt, please discuss on the talk page here.
Q6: Why was membership of the Axis, as listed in the infobox, decided to only include those clearly and unambiguously described as being members of the Axis in reliable sources?
A6: In a discussion on the talk page in January 2021 it was decided to remove all countries which no reliable sources clearly described as being a member of the Axis. The reasoning was that by including countries that no reliable source actually identified as Axis powers but which some editors had characterised as "Axis co-belligerents", a term with no basis in reliable sources, we were essentially engaging in original research and going outside the topic of the article, which is about the Axis powers and not about wars fought parallel to the wars fought by the Axis.
Q7: I disagree with the criteria used to determine what should be included as a member of the Axis in this article!
A7: Consensus can change, please feel free to open a discussion here about how you think the article should address the question of which states should be included as members of the Axis in this article. Please also review the prior discussions in the archive to see whether your proposed way of deciding Axis membership has already been discussed.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The FAQ at the top says 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done Not clear what the request is. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The Banner talk 16:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)