Revision as of 21:02, 23 November 2014 editE-960 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,992 edits →RfC: Infobox← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:36, 20 December 2024 edit undoHMSLavender (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers61,421 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.'''}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{User:WildBot/m04|sect={{User:WildBot/m03|1|Invasion of Poland (1939)#Phase 2: Soviet aggression|invaded Poland from the east}}|m04}} |
|
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=b}} |
|
{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=high}} |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=High}} |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C |
|
|Japanese-task-force=yes |
|
|
|German-task-force=yes |
|
|
|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 18: |
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}} |
|
|B-Class-5=yes |
|
|
|Japanese-task-force=yes |
|
{{WikiProject Japan|class=B|importance=high|milhist=yes|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes}} |
|
|
|
|German-task-force=yes |
|
{{WikiProject Italy|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|Italian-task-force=yes |
|
{{WikiProject Hungary|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
|
|WWII-task-force=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Romania|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|class=B|importance=Mid|no-todolist=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=high|milhist=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Thailand|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hungary|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Austria|importance=High}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Slovakia|importance=Low}} |
|
{{archive box| |
|
|
|
{{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 |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|counter = 13 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Axis powers/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Axis powers/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Global map requested}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== "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 ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2024 == |
|
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. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 16:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Axis powers|answered=yes}} |
|
{{ec}}So where was this state then, if ? 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". <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Why is Iraq not listed in the infobox? They were a full-fledged member of the Axis. |
|
: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. |
|
|
|
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 == |
|
:By the current organization of this article, the GNS should be up with the German colonies and dependencies. That's the actual discrepancy here. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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". <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 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''. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 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 ], 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 ] "exercised power in Bosnia" - that doesn't mean there was a Bosnian client state.. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 00:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}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. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 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. "]" would be more appropriate for a Wiki title Imo. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 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. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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 ] , ], ], ] 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. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 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: ], ], ] etc <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 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. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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 , 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 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. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the map of participants in the info-box, it contains inaccuracies: |
|
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. ] (]) 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. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 08:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I am not sure what is the issue with Serbia. It's not listed as an axis country.--] (]) 02:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* 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. |
|
== Vichy France was obviously a co-belligerent power == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* 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? |
|
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* 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). |
|
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". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--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 == |
|
::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. ] (]) 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 ] and a large part of its ], known as the ] of Marshal ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:39, 18 June 2014 (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 <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/> |
|
== Yugoslavia == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
Yugoslavia wasn't allied with Axis powers. --]] 13:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:* - 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 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.) |
|
|
|
:* - 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) |
|
: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. |
|
|
|
::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 == |
|
: So, I think Yugoslavia should be removed from this section or the introduction of the section should be changed.--] (]) 03:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Axis powers|answered=yes}} |
|
== Picture Italian Empire == |
|
|
|
] (]) 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 |
|
] in at its maximum extent, in 1941.]] |
|
|
|
Here the article for making it easy to copy and paste |
|
] 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. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 01:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*{{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 ].}} |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
:] '''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 == |
|
**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". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|Axis powers|answered=yes}} |
|
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. <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 02:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC: Infobox == |
|
== Maps == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
See ]. -- ] (]) 07:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{rfc|hist|pol|rfcid=9BDF6B8}} |
|
|
Should this article have a "former country" type infobox? This question equally applies to ]. —] (]) 17:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''YES''' the infobox is a part of every major Misplaced Pages 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. --] (]) 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 ] redirects to ], so this one might be appropriate. But then again, there's also ] which might seem more on-topic. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Listen ], 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. --] (]) 08:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You don't know what an RFC is. I worded the question impartially, as required. ] (]) 14:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''yes, an infobox is of value here''' No need to remove the infobox as ] is trying to do. And the justification "revert infobox creep" is not a valid justification. And in fact, the actions bite with ]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 14:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Huh? See ]. 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 ]. I have given you reasons why the box is bad: it is arbitrary, incomplete, confusing. The subject is too complex for a standardised box. ] (]) 17:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Please stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. This issue is not that "complex"... really. --] (]) 21:00, 23 November 2014 (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