Jump to content

Talk:Axis powers: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 100: Line 100:
::::: Independent State of Croatia was not an Axis power but a subordinate to Axis powers Germany anf Italy. It is laugable to group it with Hungary, an actual axis power. That is not historically accurate or fair, but almost POV pushing. [[User:OyMosby|OyMosby]] ([[User talk:OyMosby|talk]]) 02:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
::::: Independent State of Croatia was not an Axis power but a subordinate to Axis powers Germany anf Italy. It is laugable to group it with Hungary, an actual axis power. That is not historically accurate or fair, but almost POV pushing. [[User:OyMosby|OyMosby]] ([[User talk:OyMosby|talk]]) 02:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::It was a state that acceded to the Tripartite Pact, as the infobox states. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 03:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::It was a state that acceded to the Tripartite Pact, as the infobox states. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 03:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::: Indeed, but that was not what I write about. I mentioned that if accuracy is the end goal, it should be stated if thebstate is a puppet state or part of the main Axis powers. To which Independent State of Croatia and Slovakia State were puppets states. It should at least be a sub-catagory under acceded to the Tripartite Pact section. [[User:OyMosby|OyMosby]] ([[User talk:OyMosby|talk]]) 13:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::: Indeed, but that was not what I . I mentioned that if accuracy is the end goal, it should be stated if thebstate is a puppet state or part of the main Axis powers. To which Independent State of Croatia and Slovakia State were puppets states. It should at least be a sub-catagory under acceded to the Tripartite Pact section. [[User:OyMosby|OyMosby]] ([[User talk:OyMosby|talk]]) 13:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
::::I did do an edit on the matter. [[User:Brown Water Admiral|Brown Water Admiral]] ([[User talk:Brown Water Admiral|talk]]) 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
::::I did do an edit on the matter. [[User:Brown Water Admiral|Brown Water Admiral]] ([[User talk:Brown Water Admiral|talk]]) 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Srnec about the "fairness" issue, but believe that Yugoslavia should remain, as it acceded. However, I also think the changed headings are fine. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 21:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Srnec about the "fairness" issue, but believe that Yugoslavia should remain, as it acceded. However, I also think the changed headings are fine. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 21:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:17, 12 January 2018

This is so inaccurate

If you are to write the list of Axis powers you cannot list Vichy France or Serbia in that list and I would assume for more examples. It is as one would say that India was part of Allies. If country chose Allies side, lose the war, lose lots of its terrines, experience direct genocide and then is forces to accept imposed government than such a nation and morally and factually should be left out of that list. You can make separate list with occupied territories and puppet governments.

Examples: Albania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, ... on that list were clear allies. Now some went way along Hitler some tried to just do minimum.. Greece, Serbia, France, Norway... were invaded, thus putting them in the same list is idiotic

Croatia, did not have puppet government. Puppet gov. is the one imposed. Ante Pavelic had huge support in Croatia, and previous leadership of Kingdom of Yugoslavia was not quite popular. Thus Croatia was not occupied. It exercised similar autonomy as Hungary e.g. during German domination of Europe, quite different to France, Norway, Serbia or Greece.

Though reputation of Wikipedia is subjected to mockery, you should really put some effort in making it serious for your reach is huge and unfortunately many people are getting their facts from this, however disgraceful is what you do

129.192.10.2 (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the listed "entities" is dealt with separately depending on their status. Some were invaded and occupied (Norway, France), others joined the Axis freely (Bulgaria and Romania), others were effectively created by the Axis with occupation forces that propped them up from the very beginning (Croatia and Slovakia). Others weren't even states, but occupied territories (Serbia).They are treated differently for a reason, and that is because the reliable sources treat them differently. And I suggest you register an account. Unregistered IPs are a dime a dozen in the WWII area, if you want to be taken seriously, create an account where your edit history can be looked at by others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Axis powers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Serbia

I have removed Serbia from this article. In no respect was Serbia a client state of Germany. It was an occupied territory with a puppet government which had almost no real power, it wasn't recognised as a state even by the minor Axis satellites. No source I am aware of refers to it as a client state. It just doesn't belong in this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67:. Norman Davies considers it one here[1].
  1. ^ Davies, Norman (2007). Europe at war : 1939-1945 : no simple victory. London: Pan. ISBN 978-0-330-35212-3. p. 304
(Hohum @) 18:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Norman Davies is anywhere near the academic consensus on this issue. Historians who have examined this issue in detail, such as Lemkin, Tomasevich, Pavlowitch, Milazzo and others refer to it by a number of different means, see the Names section of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. For starters, it wasn't a state, it was an occupied territory (as noted by Lemkin, an authority on Nazi-occupied Europe), and remained so (with a puppet government that was just an instrument of the occupation regime), until October 1944. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky situation. What are specifically the differences between this Serbian regime and the Norwegian Quislin regime? The Banner talk 09:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The differences may actually appear fairly semantic on first glance, but ultimately I think you're asking the wrong question. For background, firstly, the borders of Norway were not changed, Yugoslavia was partitioned and parcelled out to the Axis powers, with the German occupied territory of Serbia being a mere fragment of the prior country whose borders did not correspond to any previous Yugoslav or Serbian state or even internal division. Secondly, Norway was under dual German administration, with a primary civil authority (the Reichskommissariat Norwegen), and a Military Commander in Norway, both of whom ultimately worked to Hitler, whereas the German occupied territory of Serbia was controlled only by the military. But ultimately, neither Norway nor Serbia were ever members of the Axis, or even client states with any real existence as separate from their German overseers. Both were occupied territories, and remained so until liberated. They had puppet governments, they weren't puppet states like the Independent State of Croatia. Ultimately we work on what the reliable sources say, and as far as I know, Davies is the only source referring to Serbia as a "client state". Frankly, I think this article has become the victim of "mission creep", and needs to be limited to those powers that actually acceded up to the Tripartite Pact, without getting into the disputed territory of what constitutes a "client state". At best, it should be limited to only those "client states" that the academic consensus agrees on, and Serbia just isn't going to be in that group. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning. I agree with the removal on this basis - indeed, the article does seem to sprawl in general. (Hohum @) 16:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. It is now clear to me and I agree. The Banner talk 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free City of Danzig

Given that the Free City of Danzig Police aided the Germans during the Invasion of Poland, specifically at Westerplatte and the Defence of the Polish Post Office in Danzig, does the state merit a section?Capt Jim (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the "Major Axis Powers" and "Minor Axis Powers" sections into just "Axis"

This has troubled me for quite a while, and I think it's time to speak out about it. You see, most readers are rather careless about details. They see "Major Axis Powers" they go "Oh, better check these guys out", then they see the "minors" and go "Meh, who cares about them". ...No. That is wrong, on SO many levels! Beginning with Hungary pretty much sowing the seeds for the creation of the Axis through its prime minister, Gyula Gombos, to Romania pretty much making the Eastern Front, the greatest front of the war, able to happen. Through the oil it provided, through the hundreds of thousands of troops that fought in many major battles and enabled the Germans to maintain a continuous line on such a massive front. Hungary did that too, but to a lesser extent. You type "Axis Powers" in Google Images, most pictures are about the top 3, the "Major" ones. I do not find it acceptable, that 7-8 decades after the war, with all this wealth of information being one click away, to see this happen. Thus, I propose that the sections be merged. Let the reader decide who did how much. Because as it is now, it really does encourage ignorance. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they would better termed the founding powers, as they created the Tripartite Pact, and the other acceded to it afterwards. However, in terms of their military contribution, Germany and Japan, and to a lesser extent Italy, dwarfed the others. But ultimately we should refer to them based on what they are called in reliable sources. I don't have that info in front of me right now, but I think a change would need an examination of the literature first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See, the thing with the current terming is that it has very dismissive undertones. When someone sees "Major" they check it out, when they see "Minor", they shrug and ignore it. I don't think the subsequent signatories of the Pact deserve this, particularly Romania and Hungary, whose actions were decisive to some extent. There were varied differences between the three big members too, but at the core, they and the "minors" are the same: sovereign state signatories of the Tripartite Pact. Alas, if not merging them, I would suggest renaming them to "Tripartite Pact founding members" and "Subsequent signatories of the Tripartite Pact" respectively. Or something along those lines. I do believe it would be fairer. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support re-naming the sections to "Original Tripartite powers" and "Accessionary Tripartite powers" (or something). Yugoslavia should be removed: it was never an Axis power. Thailand did not sign the Tripartite Pact and should be in the same section as Finland (co-belligerents). Iraq should be somewhere else, since it was not a co-belligerent in the same sense as Thailand and Finland. Slovakia and Croatia were the only puppet states that could be described as Axis powers. The question of "fairness" does not enter into it; historical accuracy and systematic bias do. Srnec (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Independent State of Croatia was not an Axis power but a subordinate to Axis powers Germany anf Italy. It is laugable to group it with Hungary, an actual axis power. That is not historically accurate or fair, but almost POV pushing. OyMosby (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was a state that acceded to the Tripartite Pact, as the infobox states. Srnec (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but that was not what I meant to take umbridge with. I mentioned that if accuracy is the end goal, it should be stated if thebstate is a puppet state or part of the main Axis powers. To which Independent State of Croatia and Slovakia State were puppets states. It should at least be a sub-catagory under acceded to the Tripartite Pact section. OyMosby (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did do an edit on the matter. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Srnec about the "fairness" issue, but believe that Yugoslavia should remain, as it acceded. However, I also think the changed headings are fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale regarding removing Yugoslavia is that "Axis powers" is not the same as "Tripartite Pact powers". Yes, Yugoslavia was, very briefly, part of the Tripartite Pact. But Finland and Thailand never were and they were far more important to the war as allies of the original three powers. The Yugoslav gov't that signed the pact had nothing to do with the Axis war effort at any point. If the def'n in the first line is correct—"nations that fought in World War II against the Allied forces"—then I don't see how Yugoslavia belongs, even for two days. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to rationalize the infobox somewhat. The first three sections are well-defined—"Original Tripartite Pact powers", "States that acceded to the Tripartite Pact" and "Co-belligerent states", where the last category indicates internationally-recognised sovereign states. I have completely revamped the old "Client states" section, which was a mash-up of non-states (the Government of National Unity (Hungary) was a government, not a state), non-clients (Vichy France was technically in a state of war with Germany and Italy) and states whose connection to the war effort of the Axis seems tenuous at best (Laos, no article). Now it is a list of "Puppet governments". Srnec (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norway

How on Earth did you decide not to include Norway in the main list at the top of the page? I know it's mentioned later in the article, but it needs to be added at the top as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.12.126 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&oldid=819993767"