Talk:Axis powers - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DuckDodgers21.5 (talk | contribs) at 00:21, 22 March 2008 (→Blatant American(our victors dictate history) Propaganda). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:21, 22 March 2008 by DuckDodgers21.5 (talk | contribs) (→Blatant American(our victors dictate history) Propaganda)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Germany

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

International relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / European / German / Japanese / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	World War II task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Japan

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 21:12, December 26, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English.
Assess unassessed articles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Axis powers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

To-do list for Axis powers: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Archives

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. --The monkeyhate 11:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Relations between countries were quite shallow in the 1930s. For example, the Nazis had good relations with Chiang Kai-Shek until 1941 and condemned the Nanjing Massacre. 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 Spanish Civil War against Germany and Italy, while no other state did anything. Stalin had idiotically gutted his own officer corps in 1937 and needed some breathing space in which to rebuild the Red Army. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact 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. Grant65 | Talk 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 German-Soviet Commercial Agreement which seriously weakened effect of allied naval blockade are importnant enough for haveing "Case of Soviet Union" in article like Spain and Denmark have.--Staberinde 13:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Than why not "case of the USA"?--Nixer 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 Australian-Dutch invasion of Portuguese Timor 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. Grant65 | Talk 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. Ronank 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'.24.64.52.109 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.--Staberinde 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 lebensraum 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. Grant65 | Talk 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.--Staberinde 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?24.64.52.109 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!24.64.52.109 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. Grant65 | Talk 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 German-Soviet Commercial Agreement was very importnant for germany which lacked raw materials.--Staberinde 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. Grant65 | Talk 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. 24.64.52.109 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 Romanian Bridgehead 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.--Staberinde 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.--Nixer 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Great quote; that says it all. Grant65 | Talk

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.--Staberinde 10:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why not USA?--Nixer 09:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How many allied nations USA invaded in cooperation with nazis?--Staberinde 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 Attack on Mers-el-Kébir. 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. Grant65 | Talk 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).--Staberinde 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.24.64.52.109 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.Wikisib 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.--Staberinde 09:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no debate. These are definitions of co-belligerent:

A nation or state that carries on war in connection with another
Co-belligerence - 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.
A country fighting with another power against a common enemy

The Soviet Union falls in there, regardless of motive. Unless you change the definition of co-belligerent, then this applies. Oberiko 13:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As was said in the World War II article, what you just wrote is a classic case of "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" Misplaced Pages:No original research. 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. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."--Ilya1166 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us a source which says the USSR was an ally before 1941? --LtWinters 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that it was an ally before 1941.--Ilya1166 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balderdashedder (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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,
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,
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.
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."24.64.52.109 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite a rant there... Who's "teach"? Manxruler (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.195.12.169 (talk • contribs)

The Iran section was moved to Cases of controversial relations with the Axis of World War II a while back.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mexico?

I know Mexico wasent part of the Axis and probabley tried to stay Neutral, but do you think some Mexicans had relationships with Fransisco Franco and Spain under Franco? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.104.11 (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Victors Dictate History Propaganda?

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.

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.

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.

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.

.DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Removes Japan from (the Axis)

It is true. The Oxford Dictionary, published in the UK and New York, has taken Japan out of their definition of the Axis. "Concise Oxford Dictionary: Tenth Edition Completey Revised" Hard-cover Page 93 (the Axis) the alliance between Germany and Italy in the Second World War.

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.

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.

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.

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.DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories: