Talk:Axis Powers/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Japanese Imperial Flag

Shouldnt the japanese imperial flag be used as the flag of japan for ww2?

How to define Axis country?

The main issue which this article fails to solve is how the membership of axis is defined. For example, Finland clearly fought with Germany against Soviet Union, but there wasn't any formal documents for an alliance.

In my opinion, the production of certain documents can be used for the definition, and they can also present to the readers how deeply certain countries were included to the "Axis". The first steps to this direction were already taken, but unfortunately most of them were removed subsequently. What documents with their signatories should be found here are Pact of Steel, first Anti-Comintern Pact, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Tripartite Pact and second Anti-Comintern Pact.--Whiskey 20:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the definition of an axis power is one who wanted to take over the world, or other territories, but were supressed and their drive to annex new territories was ended. The Nazis in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, and the Japanese all wanted to take over the world, or other territories.--Vreddy92 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Vreddy, while that applies to major powers like the ones you stated, there were a handful of states that joined due to ideological similarities, promises of money, power, ancestral land, or just continued existance, or like Germany really, because of the content of the Treaty of Versailles, or because they were old allies (Austria-Hungary in WWI to Austria being annexed and Hungary as an Axis Power in WWII for example). So while for the most part the members were pretty cut and dry, there are exceptions to keep in mind, which is the reason I think this is still being disputed. Galactor213 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hirohito

I made the brief mention of His Imperial Majesty Shōwa Tennō a little fairer to him. I put in a "next to" purely for political correctness, as I thought others might disagree, and don't personally think he had any power in the matter at all. So I approve of John-1107's edit, though it might have to be changed.

elvenscout742 2 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

League becomes the Axis?

The Axis Powers would have taken over the League of Nations Palais des Nations in Geneva (would be renamed Imperial City) l declare that the League is officially reorganized into the Axis Empire. - John V 23:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finland

Sorry, Cimon, I can't accept that: "misrepresented" isn't appropriate - I've said quite clearly that it wasn't a member, but for the Soviets and British to consider it an "Axis power" in 1941-44 wasn't misrepresentation, just a particular broad usage (just as the US is often spoken of as one of the WWI Allies, though it wasn't allied to anyone). What precise relationship Finland upheld is also at issue. For the sake of conciliation I removed the description "ally" elsewehere (only to have this thrown at me as "evidence" that I must previously have lied). I've left in Finland's self-characterisation here without adverse comment. I'm trying not to have the other dispute overspill here where it's quite unncessary. Graculus 13:47, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

the main problem I had was the word "considered".

Hmm. I may have strayed somewhat to the "dark side" of the Finnish POV in my edit, but reading your considered comment, I realized what the real crux of the matter for me was: the word "considered" suggests a thoughtful evaluation, rather than a convenient verbal usage. I hope my second effort is more to your liking. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 14:35, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

Understood, and perfectly acceptable, Cimon. Thank you. Graculus 14:34, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ally or co-belligerent?

Why Finland could be considered as a german ally. From 1941 and not only from 1944, the ryti-rippentrop agreement: I suggest someone should read that: http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/finland/summary.html German troops operated from finnish soil from the beginning of Barbarossa (actually it was 25 June 1941). They did that with finnish permission and the Finnish joined the attack shortly thereafter. So, it is reasonly to say that there was a coalition of some sort against that common enemy. That should be reflected. I dont know why it is alway reverted.

User:217.232.107.243 15:36, 31 Jan 2005
Matti Yrjölä's website is good, and as far as I know, generally correct. You have however to read with more care. The coverage in the Wikipedia articles on the Continuation War and on co-belligerence may also help you understand, why your change[1] has been deemed unacceptable. It's not "reasonable" to say that "active coalition" is the same as "coalition of some sort" is the same as "co-belligerence against a common enemy". Since there actually was a period of what can be classified as an active coalition, i.e. the period of the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement, this is not without relevance. Your proposed wording of the commentary part of the article replicates an error that existed in the German Wikipedia and, I believe, has since been corrected. You wrote:
However, after Finland regained the lost territories of the Winter War it went on the defensive and did not continued its advance, even after German pressure to do so.
This is downright wrong.
/Tuomas 18:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) Yeahhhhhhhhhh

co-belligerence? Whats that anyway. According to the wikipedia article it could also be just a be a euphemism. If the above sentence is wrong, why did you delete also the other sentences i wrote?

Maybe you should look at these page: Co-belligerence#Finland's co-belligerence as an euphemism

Hitler declared to be allied with the Finns, but Finland's government declared their intention to remain a non-belligerent country, not the least due to a remaining neutralist public opinion. The truth was somewhere in-between:
1. In practice, by mining the Gulf of Finland Finland's navy contributed to Germany's attack from the beginning. Thereby the Leningrad navy was locked in by Finland's navy, making the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia practically domestic German waters, where submarines and navy could be trained without risks.
2. After the Soviet attack on Finland, its re-conquest of the Karelian Isthmus, and to a lesser extent the occupation of East Karelia, contributed to the siege of Leningrad.

Thats what i wrote. So maybe you should delete it there as well?

3. The sixteen Finnish divisions tied down large numbers of Soviet troops.
4. Germany's supply of much needed nickel from Petsamo and iron from Sweden was critical to the Nazis' ability to prolong the war.

--User:Holger1076 21:44, 31 Jan 2005

Well, one idea with the internal wikipedia links is to avoid duplication of detailed information. When you put the sentence "But Finland cooperated with Germany during Barbarossa and German troops and airforces were allowed to operate against the Soviet Union from Finnish soil." before the reference to the co-belligerence during the Continuation War, you first of all obscured these references. You also extracted information from the referred articles in a biased way. And, of course, as anyone can see, your claim that "that's what you wrote" is wrong. :-)
Finland cooperated with Germany before the Continuation War first and foremost as a necessary protective arrangement against an expected Soviet attack. Then, during the Continuation War, Finland cooperated with Germany as a co-belligerent, not as an ally. Your way of expression carries echoes of the Stalinist propaganda that tried to depicture Finland as an aggressive threat against the 50 times bigger Soviet Union, and tried to give the World the impression that Finland had attacked the Soviet Union twice: both starting the Winter War and the Continuation War, when the reality is the opposite.
The threat of a renewed Soviet invasion after the Winter War was very real and vividly felt by all Finns. The Soviet veto against closer defensive cooperation between Finland and Sweden could have no other function than to facilitate the next invasion (since the Swedes' prime precondition for such an alliance was the Finns' renouncement of any claim of re-aquisition of the lost Finnish Karelia). Britain neither wished to, nor could, support Finland after the German occupation of Denmark and Norway. The only possible protector was Hitler's Germany. Although there existed political circles within Finland, that gladly had commenced a war against the Soviet Union with the Germans in the back, these circles were fringe minorities. Finland had a working democratic parliamentarism all through WWII, and the government's policy was quite another. The occupation of the Baltic Republics clearly proved that Finland was badly needing protection; the Germans were the only alternative; and the German protection had a prize. Finnish concessions to Nazi Germany are not to be denied, but neither should they be exaggerated.
Finland made concessions to both the Soviet Union and to Nazi Germany that were questionable in light of international law on neutrality, but Finland's government had both domestic and international reasons to make these concessions so small as only possible. Finland's position, like Sweden and Switzerland isolated from the pre-Barbarossa Allies, made it unevietable that the neutrality became somewhat Germany-leaning, at least as long as Germany seemed to become the victor of the war. Finland's concessions (before the Soviet attack) were not qualitatively different from for instance Sweden's. The German troops on Finnish soil were there primarily to avert a Soviet attack, and Germans were with few and unimportant exceptions not allowed to "operate from Finnish soil" against the Soviet Union before the Continuation War. This didn't make Finland to an Axis power, except for in the enemy's propaganda, that unfortunately after Britain joining Finland's enemies in December 1941 has been spread also among English speakers.
/Tuomas 01:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding what any of the discussion of rationale has to do with whether Finland was an ally or co-belliegerent or anything else. While I am sensitive to those who want to make certain people understand that German-Finnish cooperation was not a result of shared ideology, as may be the case with Italo-German relations, but instead a matter of practicality in which the hand of Finland was essentially forced by the events around it and positions of much larger powers, it doesn't change whether or not Finland was or as not an ally of Germany at some point. The discussion should not revolve on whether or not Finland had to or was justified to cooperate with Germany. For an encyclopedia, it must revolve around a simple discussion on whether Finland fit the prerequisites to meet the definition of an ally. If so, then it is not only appropriate, but a requirement that it be mentioned that it meets those criterion in any article addressing the matter. If it does not, then it is not appropriate to refer to Finland as an ally of Germany or the Axis. The definition of ally is given as one that is allied to another, especially by treaty (note that such treaty is not prerequisite), or one in helpful association with another. There is no question that there was helpful association between Finland and Germany during a period of World War II. Did that association extend to military matters, which the use of the term ally would indicate when used in an article referring to the war? That may be a matter of some debate, although there is no doubt that there was some level of military coordination between the two. Finland did not join the Tripartite Pact, and so it is probably incorrect to refer to Finland as an Axis Power, but if cooperation was to a certain extent, then it would be appropriate to refer to it as an ally of Germany and hence the Axis Powers, at least during the period of June 26, 1941 to September 4, 1944. Joshbaumgartner 04:06, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Was Sweden, that (for once) characterized herself as a non-belligerent instead of a neutral in the Winter War an "ally" of Finland? Withouth Sweden's military and diplomatic support, Finland would not have survived the Winter War. Without Germany's support, Finland would not have survived the Continuation War. English is not my mother tongue, although I have went to school in an English language setting for a couple of years. Nevertheless, I must admit that my understanding of English usage is sometimes lacking. According to that English I've learned, Finland was a co-belligerent and not an ally — with a possible exception for sex weeks in 1944. To me, the allegation of an alliance between my democratic fatherland and a dictature that concidered my "race" as Untermenschen nothing but Soviet propaganda.
I think your English is quite good (a lot better than Finnish I can garantee), but several things: 1. Finland was an Axis Power because desperation.

2. Sweden was sort of an Axis Powerdue to the Winter War and various other reasons. 3. Hitler and the Nazis probably liked Finns better than, say, Italians because Finns are obviosly northern European. Cameron Nedland 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important with distinctions. You, Josh, recently alleged in the article Participants in World War II that Finland should have been a co-belligerent of the Axis Powers and not of the Third Reich. This contradicts anything I until today have read, and doesn't exactly increase your credibility in my eyes. /Tuomas 05:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The critical issue here is whether Finland entered into an alliance by her own choice, and if so, which the purpose and goals of this alliance were, or if Finland involuntarily found herself in the position as co-belligerent with another country against a common enemy (that this second country had invaded). Being ideological adversaries, or not, is maybe not particularly relevant — unless one interprets the world war as an ideological war and argues that also the Finns of 1940 did so.
The debate in this issue was strong for all of the Cold War, with Soviet sympathizers arguing that the Continuation War was a war of choice, and anti-Communists arguing that Finland like driftwood was subjected to the forces of greater powers. The fall of the Soviet Union, and the opening of some Soviet archives, effectively ended that debate.
If Wikipedia tries to argue that co-belligerence is nothing but an euphemism for a defeated military alliance, then that's quite something different than to inform that some people (or some similar weasel term) thinks so, or as like the article on co-belligerence does, state that Finland was neither an ally nor a non-belligerent. This is a matter of both correctness and NPOV.
I think the article is good as is, with the link to the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement under "Active coalition", and the remark that some people consider Finland an Axis-country, but that the Finns disagree, and including the links to co-belligerence and to the Continuation War.
--Johan Magnus 19:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Johan, I would tend to agree with you. Joshbaumgartner 19:52, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Toumas, I would appreciate if you could explain to me how I 'alleged in the article Participants in World War II that Finland should have been a co-belligerent of the Axis Powers and not of the Third Reich.', as you stated in your last edit.

Looking at the article, my edit of the Finland section was as such:

Finland was one of the victims of Soviet aggression in 1939. It refused Soviet territorial demands, and was invaded by Soviet forces, beginning the Winter War. Finland sufficiently delayed the invasion that an agreement was settled, costing the Finns territory but not their independence. Finland then joined Germany in attacking the Soviets in 1941, in what was called the Continuation War. When the Soviets took the initiative in 1943, Finland was again forced to the table, where they agreed to cease hostilities but avoided occupation and destruction of their government. Finland would become a neutral power balanced between NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War.

Note that it has been edited since by others (look in the history to find what I wrote). I don't want to make a big deal of this, but you brought it up as an indication that I lacked credibility. Now there is one error in my edit: it was 1944 that the Soviets truly went on the offensive against Finland and brought them to the table. But I certainly didn't even write the word ally or co-belligerent in my edit, but instead just laid out what happens and let the reader determine what they should be considered (isn't that what one is supposed to do in this work?). I also did not mention Finland in the Axis section, even so far as cooperating with them might warrant such mention.

If you are going to call my credibility into question, please do so on something I actually wrote, please! Or am I missing something in my edit above that shows Finland in an unfair light? I certainly hope that you are not merely attacking me on the basis of my not taking a line wholly consistent with yours.

Joshbaumgartner 19:52, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Soviet Union be considered an Axis power as well from 1939-41? Like Finland, it was first a co-belligerent with Germany (against Poland), then an enemy of Germany.--Countakeshi 13:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A fact not to be underestimated: 1941 when the Anti-Comintern Pact was re-awaken, Finland signed it. Fagyd 19:54, 4th March 2006 (UTC+2)

I think that this issue should be resolved on the basis of the Tripartite Treaty. While Finland was either allied, co-belligerant or whatever with Nazi Germany, the state was quite likely unrelated to Mussolini's regime and Imperial Japan, at least in the sense of international law. Therefore the axis consisted of the three major powers already noted, as well as Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria. Certainly if Finland's relations with the Axis as a whole, not just those of Germany, were as close as those of the other 'little' members of the treaty, then we could consider them as an Axis country. Lacking that, I think co-belligerant or perhaps fine weather ally might be a more suitable term.--Cuomo111 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point to the circumstances surrounding the declaration of war between Finland and USSR in 1941. If Finland would have been ally of Germany, shouldn't Finland have declared war on USSR as soon as Germany started hostilities? Soviets initiated war by bombing Finland. Even then the bombing might have been justified had it been targeted to germans, but no such targeting was made and the bombing was quite broad and had lots of finnish targets. Even the english parliament stated at the time, that USSR had initiated war between the two countries. Had Finland initiated the warfare simultaneously with Germany against USSR, i would say that it was alliance between the two and they struggled for common goal. But because finnish war machine worked separate from Germany's, there weren't real common goals and some of them were even ignored(Leningrad for instance), i'd vote for co-belligerence. There is no militaristic or strategical reason why Finland didn't advance and close up the siege of leningrad, the reason was political, and hence, not decision made by ally, but co-belligerent which had it's own agenda. Enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of thing. --Fin, 19:35 UTC+3

Co-belligerent again

(This issue needs no separate title, as it is intended as attack on the sill co-belligerent status of finland)(JH) (Yes, it does, as we are rehashing an old discussion in a new point of view, not simply continuing the existing debate, not to mention making the page more readable)(W)

Reasons for considering Finland a ”co-belligerent.” 1) Finland only signed formal alliance to augment specific treaties like transit treaty after several years of joint warfare and even then only as a temporary political move. 2) Finland had policy that was independent form the reich and on occasion not harmonious with it. 3) Joining the allies in 1944. 4) Finns may not have had full freedom of choice in all matters. 5) Errrrrr… well is that not enough, I mean that is all I have got…

Reasons for considering Bulgaria a “co-belligerent” 1) Complete lack of any significant or long term military co-operation. Only major joint operation took place during the short war against Greece and Yugoslavia, latter co-operation hardly deserves mention as it can be classified as anti-partisan warfare.. Bulgarian troops were never placed under command of Germans and German troops were never placed under command of Bulgarians. 2) Independent policy causing Germany grief for example by upsetting Turkey. 3) Complete factual non-participation in all German major fronts against both Soviets and Western allies. 4) Lack of armaments co-operation as Bulgarian army (unlike Finnish) was not to any extent German armed. 5) Lack of specific co-operation pacts to augment the alliance treaty the practical meaning of which was short termed. 6) Bulgarians never participated in the waffen SS military formations (unlike Finns.) 7) As demonstrated by Yugoslavia denying Germans passage and being invaded, no one had full freedom of choice in the middle of a world war. Should one go to a dictionary, one would find that alliance is not alliance only if both allies entered it willingly, any more then marriage is marriage only if commitment is made out of love. Bulgarians would have better case then Finns, if they would like to argue being forced to an alliance they were unenthusiastic about. 8) Joining the allies in 1944

Reasons for considering Italy a “co-belligerent” 1) Independent policy causing Germany continuous grief, for example Italian attack on Greece, about which Germans were not warned beforehand, has been rumoured to be the first setback in the war to cause Hitler a fit of psychotic rage. 2) No co-operation in the armaments and munitions sector. Italy had independent weapons industry giving it independent warfare capability. 3) Non participation in the German battle of its main front against Soviets. Italian units in the East were voluntaries sent as “party to party” assistance, not military formations sent as “state to state” assistance. 4) Italian non-participation in the waffen SS military formations. 5) Joining the allies in 1943.

Due to the factual comparisons I presented above, I consider the whole “co-belligerent” issue a symptom of neurotic denial of my own people. Theory of Finland as “a co-belligerent” has little realistic basis at all. If put to test by attempting to apply it wider then to the specific situation that its inventors would LIKE to apply it, it can be seen as patently absurd.

Myself I feel that allying (sic!) with Germany after having gotten clobbered and robbed by the Russians in the winter war was very human, very stupid, very understandable and very consistent with finish characteristic nature of holding deep grudges full of cold hatred.

Janne Harju

The separating fact is political commitment. Mussolini government signed the Pact of Steel, the original axis treaty, with Germany, and all Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary etc., but NOT Finland signed the Tripartite Treaty, when it was resurrected 1941 where military co-operation is included. Finland did sign Anti-Comintern Pact, but it contained only information sharing responsibilities and was signed by Spain and Denmark, one neutral and one occupied by Germany.
The SS non-participation can be also seen totally otherwise: SS-volunteers were recruited only from neutral, occupied or hostile countries. It was seen as Italian and Romanian SS-men became only after both countries defected to the allied side. Also I'm somewhat surprised about your claim about Bulgarian armaments co-operation, as Germany delivered almost the same number of tanks and assault guns to Bulgaria as it delivered to Finland and if you look the Bulgarian air force, although it contained less numbers (47) of different plane types like Finnish air force (68), it contained more German made types (18 vs. 13). Could you elaborate a bit?
Marriage is marriage regardless of love included if proper legal forms are filled. (Unless you have to explain it to immigration department...) The same applies to alliances. But in this article, the existence of Finland here already makes it a honorary member of the axis, but it still doesn't make it that Finns did sign the Tripartite Treaty. --Whiskey 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Elaboration on munitions issue: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=3254,

Tanks serviceable for combat missions by 1944 delivered to Finland from Germany – 77 from other sources (taken from USSR) – 16. German equipment formed 82% of Finnish tank forces.

Ahem! At the end of 1943 Bulgaria has received 71 tanks/assault guns (PzKpfw IV/StuG III) from Germany. Finland had 29 StuG III assault guns. At March 1944 the main armament of Finnish Armored Division was T-26, 98 of them. It was during the summer 1944 when Finns received the rest of German tanks/assault guns, 30 StuG IIIs and 18 PzKpfw IVs, the last 15 which were received at August 1944.
T-26 being completely useless against soviet tank forces in 1944, StuGs, artillery, German stukas and infantry AT fire took the burden of stopping the highly armoured Russian penetrations. Note the words "serviceable for combat missions. I also have no data of whether old captured russian biplane fighters were used as liasion and observation planes. Still I did not rate them "serviceable for combat missions." (JH)
We know that, but the main component of Finnish Armored Division in the beginning of June 1944 was T-26s. Bulgaria received more than 70 more StuG's and PzKpfw's during 1944 even when there wasn't such a urgent need for them as Finns had.

Planes serviceable for combat missions by 1944 received from Germany – 331 (captured French fighters, Me-109s, dorniers and ju-88) from other sources – 103 (These were Brewsters, Blenheims and captured Russian bombers and modern fighters. older Russian fighterplanes, Fiats, Hurricanes, Gloster Gladiators, Fokkers etc had been removed from use as obsolete.) German equipment formed 76% of finish air force. No Finish anti tank weapons predating the continuation war was capable of penetration against Russian 1944 tanks and Finland had no production on its own.

I guess one can count with a single hand worldwide the AT guns of 1941 capable to penetrate 1944 Soviet tanks. I have a bad feeling that German 88 was the only one...
and your point is what? (JH)
The point is that before the Continuation War it was impossible to purchase AT weaponry capable to handle 1944 Soviet tanks. When the British declaration of war closed oversea routes the only option to purchase modern material was from Sweden and Germany. Finns did purchase some material from Sweden, but Sweden couldn't offer AT weaponry capable to handle 1944 Soviet tanks, so only option available was Germany.

German weapons PAK and rockets formed 100% of Finnish anti tank capability if gasoline bottles and satchel charges are not counted.

Putting it that way, Finns did have number of Soviet made AT guns in use, and also some guns purchased right after the Winter War, but like Molotov coctails they were only capable to destroy light tanks.
Which Russians had in use one for about every ten T-34's. (JH)
Sorry, I was too short. I meant that capable to destroy unarmored and lightly armored vehicles, which meant a lot more than only light tanks like armored cars, light self propelled guns, guns, trucks etc.

By educated guess, possibly some 1/3 out of finnish artillery originated from Germany. I also emphasise to you that Finland’s own capability for ammunition manufacture never equalled the daily use of Finnish army, even during the quiet period of 1942 and 1943. Finland received some hundred million small arm rounds and almost three million artillery shells from Germany during the war

The reason for considering Finland more dependent on German armaments is simple. Bulgarian active participation in the war on German side was limited to the year 1941. Older models becoming obsolete, expenditure of ammunition and losses taken were less of an issue then they were for Finland engaged in active conflict with a major power. Finland had some independence in this sector in 1941 by degrees becoming totally dependent by the major red army offensives of 1944 in every other regard exempt in manufacturing some small arms (SMG, LMG, Pistols, rifles).

The reasons for that are threefold: 1) Finland was surrounded by Germany and Soviet Union; No other viable trade route existed outside. 2) Sweden could provide only limited support in arms due to it's own limitation in production; Finland did purchase material from Sweden during the war. 3) Germany had lots of captured material it couldn't/didn't want to use itself. Germany could sell it easily to Finland and Finland could buy cheaply new material below normal prises.
 : Exactly the same situation with the Balkan allies. Completely meaningles statement. (JH)
Romania and Bulgaria had routes open through Turkey. Unfortunately they did declare war to United States and Britain (unlike Finland), So the situation wasn't identical.
Finnish army was a logistical nightmare during the WWII. It had material about every country who participated to the conflict and even some from the neutral ones.
 : Agreed. It was phenomenally so. 1941-1944 it used in active service 15 different planetypes originating from 7 different countries for fighters only. As stated most of these were obsolete by 1944.(JH)

Also on a different issue, I’d like to add that considering signing tripartite pact defining feature of being allied to Germany is completely arbitrary. In my opinion more realistic approach estimates such features as prolonged actual military co-operation and definite co-operation treaties such as the Finn-German transition treaty. You see paper is rather cheap. Even by the legalistic view Finland was allied to Germany by the Ryti-Ribbentrop treaty. Finnish legal trick of claiming the treaty a “personal alliance” enabled Finland to dismantle it faster then speed of light “ab initio” when it became liability. If such trick is taken seriously, then Soviet Union could make absolutely the same claim about the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty.

Janne Harju

PS. Now I notice that I indeed misspoke and stand corrected. I should have said "dependent" or "equipped" etc, not "armed." Bulgarian army did get German weapons. It was not dependent on them entirely.

If you count only modern in 1944 standards like you did in Finland, Bulgarian army was dependent on German equipment entirely. It did have pre-1941 equipment from France and Britain, like Finland did, but they were obsolate in 1944 environment.
One should also note, that unlike Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, Finland did not declare war to United States at December 1941, which shows the lacking political bind between Finland and Germany.
 : Does also Japanese failure to declare war on Soviet Union in june 1941 "show the lacking political bind." If it does the whole axis nations article is without basis.(JH)
Nope. If you read the text, it only stipulates that only if one party is attacked.... Germany didn't even bother to claim that Soviet Union attacked first. The political closeness between Germany and Balkan countries is seen from the fact that they followed Germany when it declared war on USA.
It gets pretty dorky, if a general historical classification (i.e. Finland's alliance with Nazi Germany) is reduced to a single "stipulation" on one piece of paper. To ease up the pain of those who put their faith in the Theory of "Co-Belligerence", it might be gentle to speak about "closer" and "more remote" allies, Finland belonging of course to the latter group. --Votkinsk 08:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Union couldn't use similar claim with M-R Pact, as it was ratified in the proper order in Soviet Union. R-R never was.

 : secret protocols of the M-R pact were not ratified in accordance to the soviet constitution. As I said, if we start playing with legalities, we get absurd results. (JH)

There are several examples in the modern world, when two countries make limited co-operation against the third one, and still one is not considered allied to another one.

 : Someone really should tell this to the media, as they continueously refer to Brits as American allies. (JH)
I had Turkey and Saudi-Arabia against Iraq and Iran against Afghanistan in my mind...
And Finland still isn't the signatory of the Tripartite Pact. --Whiskey 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 : Perhaps I should mold the article so that it puts less weight on Tripartite pact. I would prefer to consider realistic factors and the R-R pact sufficient to put Finland in the same category with other axis allies. Less seemed to suffice for Thailand. (JH)
Yes, Thailand should be removed there also, as it didn't sign Tripartite Pact but separate alliance treaty with Japan only. Maybe a separate section is sufficient? --Whiskey 23:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Tripartite Pact has too much weight in the article, because JH showed us that Finland can be considered as an axis' ally even if she didn't sign the Tripartite Pact ( as well as Thailand ), so it is better to take into consideration the realistic issues. Plz let's not use terms like "co-belligerent", I agree with JH on the fact that the whole "co-belligerent" fact regarding Finland is frankly ridicolous. --Plato77 02:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And again...

Finland is a touchy subject, most people will agree that Finland was back stabbed (M-R Pact) and that eventually lead to a relationship with Germany. But, was Finland forced to attack the Soviet Union? Finlands goal was to reclaim lost territory from the Winter War, but why did they go beyond their pre-existing Winter War boundaries?

It was a general feeling due to Soviet actions that the second round was coming and only the timing was an issue. It was almost sure that Finland would have joined the war without the Soviet air offensive which started open hostilities. It is too much to say that Finns were 'forced', there were always other options available, but Finnish leaders choosed the best option of the available based on the available knowledge.
Not a single major power or even most of the minors planned to fight even a defensive war on their own soil: They all planned to take fight to the enemy. Finns succeeded this quite well, as almost all fighting happened outside 1940 borders. Only at Ilomantsi Soviet forces crossed the border but were thrown back by Finnish counterattack.
Why Finns occupied East Karelia? The main reasons are: i) Provides natural obstacles which increases the overall defensiability of Finland north of Lake Ladoga. ii) Could be used as bargaining chip in peace negotiations. iii) Incorporating Fennic people living there and their land to 'Greater Finland'. It depends on persons which one of these are more important and which are less.

Great Britian which can be viewed as the leader of the Allies declared war on Finland on December 6th 1941. This to me throughs Finland firmly in the Axis camp. While, I can see no existance of an actual agreement binding Finland to the axis, her actions and the actions of the UK seem to through her directly within the axis camp. Also, the UK bombed Pestamo as well.

UK cared very little about Finland when it became evident that UK was fighting about her survival with Germany. When UK declared war on Finland, UK and USSR were fighting alone against Germany and US participation was nowhere to be seen.

I also find using the arguement that the US never declared war on Finland as very weak. Is it fair to say that the USSR was a member of the Allies pre-1945? We can all say yes to that. But, the USSR did not declare war on Japan till the waning days of the war.

Well, US was at war with all other axis powers in Europe but not with Finland. For USSR neutrality in Pacific Theater was well founded: half of all Lend-Lease to USSR went through Vladivostok route. By joining the war USSR would have closed that extremely important breathing hole and endangered whole allied war effort. There was no such constraint between Finland and US.

Also, the Allies allowed the USSR to keep territory seized during the Winter War. Would this be considered a war spoil for defeating a member of the Axis? More than likely, it shows the timidness of the Allies, but it is notable.

Nope. The interim peace treaty was dictated from Moscow, with no Western participation. When the final peace negotiations started in Paris, Soviet representatives very firmly expressed to Finnish delegation that if they try to raise issue about the borders, it would have severe consequencies. So Finns kept theirmouth shut. Western powers considered Finland a lost cause, ready to fall into Soviet hands, so only thing UK demanded in peace treaty were limits to armaments available to Finns to limit Soviet usability of Finnish military. (US had nothing to say as it wasn't at war with Finland.)

Finland was not in a enviable position. But, lets not rewrite history here. Keep the blurb about the Finnish POV on the subject, but lets not move them out of the Axis.TchussBitc 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Finland did fight on the axis side, I don't contest that. But what I do contest is the simplistic view that all countries on the axis side were from the same mold and committed to the cause similarily. It cannot be said on the Allied side, so why it should be said on Axis side? I do like to use term co-belligerence just because of the definition of the term: co-operation without the formal treaty of alliance. Right to the point. --Whiskey 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Finland did fight on the axis side, I don't contest that. But what I do contest is the simplistic view that all countries on the axis side were from the same mold and committed to the cause similarily. It cannot be said on the Allied side, so why it should be said on Axis side? I do like to use term co-belligerence just because of the definition of the term: co-operation without the formal treaty of alliance. Right to the point. --Whiskey 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

People are well aware of the ideological differences between the allies (ie: Government types, post war plans), but they are all still called "The Allies". The allies aren't usually split into subgroups with the exception of former axis members.
It seems we have been reading different books. For what I have read, it is quite common to talk about "Western Allies" separately from Soviet Union. The main reasons are separation of operational theaters and availablility of sources (and their language). The cold war did make it very clear into the minds of the people the differences of the Allies, so there wasn't any need to bring that up in the historical writing. On the other hand, the history of the Axis is the history of the defeated, and no-one knows/cares about the fractures inside that block unless they are expressed in the text.
I see the word co-belligerence as a euphenism.
And I see it as a nuance. The world is not black and white.
Seems as if the Finns are trying to deny their past. Finland assisting the defeat of the Soviet Union would have eventually lead to subjugation of Europe by the Germans.
What is the past you claim Finns are trying to deny? The fact that Finns were not willing to sacrify themselves to Soviet communism? The fact that Germany was the very last resort Finns turned to when all else has failed? There is a lot which have been forgotten in the history writing of the Allies.
While we can get nit picky by saying a formal treaty did not exist allying the two nations together they did have a formal agreement that called for Finland not to sign a peace treaty without Germany's consent. To me that is an alliance.
Please check Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement. It wasn't a formal treaty but personal letter. Ryti originally wanted to make it formal but others, especially Mannerheim, pressured him to send only the letter. Germans were fully aware of the ramifications of this but the German Foreign Office did knew that they didn't have leverage to push more.

UK cared very little about Finland when it became evident that UK was fighting about her survival with Germany. When UK declared war on Finland, UK and USSR were fighting alone against Germany and US participation was nowhere to be seen.

Why even declare war on Finland? The UK saw them as a hostile ally of the Germans. I'm sure the USSR had much to do with this declaration of war but it really doesn't help the "co-belligerent" arguement.
The proponents of Democratic Peace Theory have been very busy to talk away that declaration.

I see all of your points, but here is what bugs me. First, the whole "peace treaty point", second Germans attacked the USSR from Finland, and third Finland acquired lands outside of her borders. Add all of these together the fact that Finland also signed the Anti-Comitern Pact is relevant (not relevant without the others)TchussBitc 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How the peace treaty point bugs you? It is interesting that you consider Anti-Comintern Pact relevant here, as it concerned only information exchange, but not Tripartite Pact which concerned military co-operation.
I'm making a small modification to the article considering the status of Thailand and Finland, but I keep the idea behind intact. --Whiskey 09:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if Finland gets special treatment.

Of course it gets! And so should every country.

Maybe it is because they are Western Europeans.

Nope. It is mainly because Soviet Union never occupied Finland. Our government system and tradition survived WWII together with western style open records which have given a lot of ammo for non-alliance.

Romania was in a worse situation than Finland and people do not hesitate to put them in the Axis lot. Sure they did sign the Tripartate (Sp?) Treaty, but don't forget about the Besarabia land grab, the Vienna Diktat, and Bulgaria claiming Constanta (Sp?). They where screwed.

You are perfectly right, they were screwed, and it should be presented also in the articles. But what is different is that Romania (or at least its leadership) decided to embrace Nazi Germany to guard its interests while Finland dragged its feets and made decisions to German direction very late when all other available alternatives seemed worse, and paid a price of that in blood.

Also, I started reading the Paris Peace Treaty a bit and I found the following: "WHEREAS Finland, having become an ally of Hitlerite Germany and having participated on her side in the war against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and other United Nations, bears her share of responsibility for this war;"

Unfortunately this doesn't make it any clearer when and how this alliance happened. Also, if you read other peace treaties, they contain a lot of accusations which are proved false afterwards; they were just added to fullfil domestic needs of the victorious powers and defeated had to sustain this insult over the injury. If you read the text further, there is also a lot of beautiful words about how democracy should be erected to Finland.:-)
What is the past you claim Finns are trying to deny? The fact that Finns were not willing to sacrify themselves to Soviet communism? The fact that Germany was the very last resort Finns turned to when all else has failed? There is a lot which have been forgotten in the history writing of the Allies.

To me Romania was in a worse position than Finland. Romania is no angel by any means (Persecution of minorities & annexing Soviet lands), but they defintley had a lot of kowtowing to do if they where to ever reclaim their territory (from Hungary and Bulgaria).

But once again, there was a difference in the methods how to achieve that object.
Please check Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement. It wasn't a formal treaty but personal letter. Ryti originally wanted to make it formal but others, especially Mannerheim, pressured him to send only the letter. Germans were fully aware of the ramifications of this but the German Foreign Office did knew that they didn't have leverage to push more.

Letter or treaty, they still agreed to put their ability to negotate a peace treaty in the Germans' hands. To me that is putting a lot of faith in someone, especially when they are "not" your ally...

At that time the outcome of Battle of Tali-Ihantala was far from sure, in fact, Soviets had just managed in their breakthrough at Tali, and Finland desparately needed the arms only Germany could deliver to stop Soviet offensive. Wehrmacht was ready to give assistance and arms to Finland and didn't care what was the official status of Finland as long as Finns were fighting Soviets. The foreign office tried to connect the aid to the alliance treaty, and Finnish leadership didn't knew if they were able to cut the aid and didn't want to risk it in the situation. Before sending the letter, Ryti (lawyer himself) certified it with other judical experts that it wouldn't restrict his followers. As evidenced from German documents and memoirs, the Foreign Office immediately saw through the scheme but decided not to press further concessions as in reality they didn't have the leverage over the army to stop the aid at the time.
It seems we have been reading different books. For what I have read, it is quite common to talk about "Western Allies" separately from Soviet Union. The main reasons are separation of operational theaters and availablility of sources (and their language).

This I totally agree with. You are right that in western media this classification occurs. But, it's not the same as "Co-Belligerent" or "Axis Member". TchussBitc 04:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, all of the three refer each other as an ally in formal declarations. Also Romania and Germany refer each other as allies in formal declarations. In Finland, the term ally wasn't used officially but Finnish foreign office was careful to always use other terms when referring the relation with Germany (brothers in arms, friends, co-belligerents,...). --Whiskey 10:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a better distinction of who were supportive of the Germans for ideological reasons and who were supportive for practical/strategic reasons. From the Finns point of view it made good sense to be supportive of the Germans operations in the area. But Finland was, unlike other members of the Axis, not involved in the extermination of the jews. It must not be forgotten that Finland had its own reasons for going to war with Russia. Even if Finland did seek territory further than what had originally been lost its reasons for doing so was not to support the nazi ideology. Had Finland tried to stay neutral it would have been overrun either by the Germans or the Russians. And I seriously doubt wether Finland would exist as a sovereign country today if she had relied on Russian support against the Germans.
On the European scene the Russians were by far the biggest winners after the war had ended. It is therefor no surprise that Finland was labeled as pro-hitler. But at the same time it must not be forgotten that by that time the Western allies had realized the huge error of letting Russia move as far into Europe as she had done. The Nordic countries were of vital importance for Russia if she was to gain easy access to the Atlantic and for that reason the Western allies were eager to make sure that Denmark, Norway and Finland did not fall under Russian control. So from that point of view it should be obvious that there is a clear bias in the interpretation of Finlands role from the Western allies and Russians point of view. The Paris Peace Treaty, from that point of view, is therefor not unbiased in its view on Finlands role in the war.
I suggest that we make a better distinction between countries that took advantage of the situation (Finland) and countries that supported the Germans because of ideological reasons. Certain Arabs were also known to be supportive of the Germans because of their view on jews. Should they too be considered axis members? The matter is not as simple as it might look due to the huge complexity of the political side of the war. So rather than trying to make somthing complex seem too simple I think we should make a clear distinction between the two. MartinDK 10:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the article on the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement states that Ribbentrop was unable to bring Finland into the Axis during his final visit to Helsinki. If we are going to include Finland in the Axis here then we need to change that article as well otherwise they are not in agreement with each other. MartinDK 08:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Why was this moved from Axis Powers? Collectively the plural is correct; "Axis Power" would be used only when talking about a specific member of the Axis Powers, as in "Axis Power Japan ..." (and probably only rarely even then). --Delirium 18:19 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

According to my understanding of the Wikipedia Naming Convention, singularis is prefered to facilitate linking. The Axis Powers might be referred to individually, and it's then easier to write [[Axis Power]]s than [[Axis Powers|Axis Power]].

Have I misunderstood this convention?
-- Ruhrjung 14:13 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

While I agree that singular nouns should be prefered to plural ones, as specified in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization), this article is clearly an exception. Every single article that links to this one does not use the phrase Axis Power, but instead uses Axis Powers or just Axis. In no place on Wikipedia is this not plural. Therefore, I feel this is an exception to the singular rule. I plan to move the article back to Axis Powers, unless there is a strong objection. Mattworld 19:15, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't see what you gain, except making the wikipedia convention less obvious or comprehensible for newcommers (and others).
--Ruhrjung 20:00, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Use some common sense here. Axis Powers is definitely better, like September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. We have The Beatles and not The Beatle. How about "The Axis"? --Jiang 21:54, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I moved it back for the interim because the decision to move it in the first place was unilateral. --Jiang 21:56, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Google: "axis power": 6,820 (many about craps and power supplies). "axis powers": 38,600 '"axis powers" -xslt -xml -toy': 37,000. So we use powers becuse it's the term used for them unless you're writing about only one of them. Same for allied powers. Ruhrjung, you have the naming convention right but you're applying it to an article where the convention makes the title wrong. Good intention; wrong article. Do consider it elsewhere, though - you got unlucky this time. JamesDay 01:44, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Clearly the plural Axis_powers is better than Axis_power in this case. No article on this subject was ever called Axis Power. I have created a link from The_axis as recommended above. [[User:Rollo|> Rollo]] 23:01, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Turkey

Because of Ismet Inonu's wrong strategy, Turkey didn't take part in the World War II. We only declared war to Germany in the last times of the battle when Allies were too close to enter to Berlin. In my opinion, Turkey should shown as a neutral country in the map. With respect, Deliogul 11:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis

I think that the "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis" is a more appropriate name for this article, since this is the name that Mussolini and Hitler put the axis under. Besides, "Axis powers" could refer to any axis, but the specific name for it is specific to World War II. WhisperToMe 02:51, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Google Test: Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis - only 378 hits, axis powers" -xslt -xml -toy - 37,000 hits. Axis Powers is clearly the more popular term. Also, I can't think of any other Axis Powers this can refer to at all; if there are some, then this can be disambig-ed. "Axis Powers" is more common, so it is used. Also, the Axis was expanded, as discussed in this article, to include countries other than Italy, Germany, and Japan. Axis Powers is clearly the correct way to refer to this group, as discussed in the article. -- Mattworld 03:00, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
In addition, just about every link on Wikipedia refers to this group as the Axis Powers, the only ones that do not are ones changed by WhisperToMe before he/she moved the page. -- Mattworld 03:06, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis" needs to be mentioned but it's not the usual way they are described, so it'll only be the right name for the article when there's another "axis powers" to disambiguate and when that one is more common than this one, so a quick link to it at the top of this one can't do justice to the disambiguation. JamesDay 05:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You'd have to call the Axis Powers the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo-Budapest-Bucharest-Helsinki-Sophia-Bankock... allince

Cameron Nedland 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Collaborators as Axis Powers

I am certainly no expert in this area, but for all practical purposes, wasn't Vichy France an Axis power? I suppose mentioning it would lead to much gnashing of teeth.

Paul, in Saudi

First in the last year, and thanks to the wikipedia project, I've understood how much the Axis power is still understood in its context of war time propaganda. Hence, it ought to be of no relevance what sources the French can present, the only relevant thing is if the contemporary Allied propaganda classified the remains of France as an Axis power, or not. — Outside of the anglophone world, however, I seriously doubt that countries defeated by the Axis would be considered Axis themselves.
--Ruhrjung 19:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wouldnt Crotia, Siam, Manchiria and Finland be considored technical and puppet members of the axis? Vichy France and France are not one in the same. Its an East Germany West Germany situation because its not clear which Germany lost WWI or was formally Prussia. Vital component 4:00am May3rd

I also don't think that the puppet states should be in the same category as the lesser axis powers. They can be mentioned, but they're not really the same. --Shallot 11:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Exactly; countries occupied by the Axis such as Siam, Manchuria and even Yugoslavia could be more likened to Poland's poisition than to that of Hungary or Romania. In the case of Yugoslavia/Croatia, the Croatian ustashis supported the Nazis whereas Serbian militiamen opposed them - Yugoslavia was a signatory to the Tripartite Pact but after a coup had essentially reneged on the commitment. In Manchuria I couldn't imagine Chinese alive during the Rape of Nanking being particularly sympathetic to the Japanese a scant ten years later. The Japanese presence was never particularly liked, and many national liberation movements, once preoccupied with fighting Britihs or French colonial masters, switched their focus to the Japanese and fought side by side with the Europeans. Naturally this would be reversed following the war. Comparing this to Hungary, Romania, etc, where many in the local populations welcomed the Nazi soldiers as brothers and desired to cast out their undesirables for the concentration camps, one can see the dichotomy between the occupied states and puppet ally states. Nevertheless, I agree with the above author - an Axis state should be defined as a country seen by the population/Allied government of the time as an Axis state. --Cuomo111 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

too wordy

The July 24th change by 205.188.112.131 looks rather like a rant. I don't think we need such explication in this article, especially when articles for each of those puppet states exist, and even more because they contain politically loaded statements. --Joy [shallot] 14:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ditched it now. --Joy [shallot] 11:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vital Component reintroduced some of the wordiness. This time it's not so bad WRT POV as the last time, but I still don't like it. --Joy [shallot] 22:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Norway as Axis ally?

I would have thought that Norway would feature in the article as the Norwegian government of Vidkun Quisling sent Norwegian volunteers to fight on the eastern front and collaborated with the Germans. Have I misinterpreted something here? --Roisterer 00:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


But do not forget that Norway had one of the best organized and most effective resistance movements in Europe. Leonard G. 02:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Norway was invaded and occupied with an exile government in London. That's three strong reasons not to classify Norway as an Axis Power. --Johan Magnus 06:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I must say I am shocked to find Norway on this list. How can you claim that a country which was invaded, occupied and whose government and royal family fled to Britain, was an axis power? Vidkun Quisling seized the power through a coup d'etat, not through any lawful election. The lack of sufficient military power to repel intruders does not mean one is loyal to the intruders. As commented by Leonard G., the resistance movement in Norway performed several key operations during the occupation, perhaps most notably the explosion of the german heavy water plant at Vemork. Maybe someone could try to define "axis power"? Unless some clear evidence is stated that Norway did indeed cooperate with the axis, it should be removed from this list. Superdix 13:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't it exiled Norwegian Army forces based in Scotland that destroyed the heavy water plant? Anyway, I agree, the legitimate regime was in exile. Quisling wasn't legitimate in any way. Norway was not an Axis power. Grant65 | Talk 16:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Norway contributed soldiers to the various foreign Legions of the Waffen SS; they may not have been an Axis power but they certainly contributed voluntarily in some small way to Axis military forces.Michael Dorosh 17:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Kompani Linge was the unit responsible for the sabotage of the plant, and they were a military unit stationed in Britain. They did, however, train Milorg -- the Norwegian resistance forces, who in return were able to provide valuable intelligence to the allied powers. I do not have any references to whether Milorg provided assistance in this particular case.
I'm kind of new to Wikipedia. At what point in a discussion will it be legitimate to edit the main story (in this case, I wish to remove Norway from the list of Axis powers)? Does one wait a week to allow people to provide solid arguments against ones own arguments? A month? Superdix 20:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


France had an organised and effective resistance movement, was invaded & occupied and had an exiled government, yet Vichy France is listed as an Axis Power. --Roisterer 22:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


France was invaded, but only partly occupied. The Free French Forces wasn't exactly an entity headed by an exiled government. --Johan Magnus 06:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


joy who are you addressing and for the record Vichy France is considored to be a different country from France. Charles de Gaul was the exiled 'leader' of France not Vichy France.

I'm to put it mildly shocked by this entire article. Norway was not an axis power in any way, the legal government was still at large (although in exile). Claiming that a nation which was occupied, had a strong resistance movement and a working, legal exile government is an axis power is just ridiculous. Might as well put every single nation that has ever been occupied up as an axis power then. Another thing, Pol III was sunk 11:15 PM, April 8th 1940, not 11:15, April 4rd 1939. Deallus 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep. The problem is, however, the entire article, rather than the individual nation listings. The article should list the nations that were in fact a part of the Axis, and possibly Finland, but the rest is just silly, and should be moved to an article named Countries occupied by Germany during WWII or something. Superdix 15:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

user:vital component

It really comes down to the legitimacy of the governing regime and then international agreements, in my opinion. The Axis was an multi-lateral alliance; realistically Vichy France, Denmark, and Norway were completely subservient tools of Nazi Germany, but not in and of themselves members of the Axis. I think that even if the relationship between Nazi Germany and the occupied territory was not one of subservience, the bi-lateral nature of any such relationship precludes the definition of that occupied territory as belonging to the Axis. Quisling had no authority to govern in any event, and as such could be considered more a collaborator than an Axis leader.

Incongruence

Hi. In the "Major Axis Powers" section of the article, the entry for Japan says "under Prime Minister Hideki Tojo and Emperor Hirohito". Our article on Hideki Tojo, however, states clearly that, although the Emperor appointed Tojo Prime Minister, he soon took over completely, and although Hirohito was still nominally in charge, Tojo was the effective dictator of Japan. The problem I mean to point out lies in that in the entry for Italy there's no mention to King Vittorio Emanuele III, who similarly appointed Mussolini to office and then remained in the shadows while the dictator led Italy into an alliance with Nazi Germany (one that the Italians would latter regret). So either we remove the mention to the Japanese Emperor in the entry for Japan or we add a similar entry for the Italian King. Personally, I believe that the first option is preferable, since it appears to be something of a stretch to claim that the Emperor activelly led Japan in its Nazi-like expansionism. Any objections? Regards, Redux 13:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)



Hitohito is mention over Victor Emanuel because V.E. was seen as more of a figure head moinarch. Its true that it was him to stripped Mussolini of power but only after the Allies had invaded Siccily. With Hirohito things werent as simple. Sense Hiro comanded so much loyalty Tojo would not have been able to force his hand without a rebelion and he couldn't threaten Hiro because that would need action. Killing Hiro would've been Tojo's down fall. Now all the flags I put on the side have to do rankings based on defense and immportance. I but Imperial Japan on the tope because it was the last Axis Allie to fall. Vital component- 10:13pm

India

I cannot believe a few pockets of territory captured by the Japanese, ruled by an extremist leader and recognised by a few Axis and Axis-controlled states can be considered to be India. India was well and truly on the side of the Allies with its armies fighting alongside British and others all over the world. A handful of soldiers who rode in on the coattails of the Japanese do not represent India!

User:222.153.79.183
No, you are surely right. However, Wikipedia works after the principle that people make changes they are knowledgeable about, and it seems as if no-one before you has deemed theirself competent to remove this peculiarity, that I believe was quite recently added.
Wikipedia begs to be improved!
Go ahead! /Tuomas 13:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


India does NOT equal Provisional Goverment of India or Free India. Had they occupied the same years during sovereignty it would be counted as a SPLINTER like with Italy and Salo.. It also does hurt that the countries recognizing it were close to dismanteling every other nation in the World.. V.C.---

WRONG BULGARIAN FLAG

Bulgaria was an ally of the Axis Powers but the flag you use is a wrong one. ОФ (OF) means Otechestven Front, the Communist-dominated Resistance which fought the Bulgarian Government and the Nazis. --83.148.73.5 13:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the Bulgarian flag, posting the Kingdom of Bulgaria flag... OF (ОФ) was a left wing anti-nazi organization.

Reason for editing the Southeast Asia section

I changed the words "de facto" to "nominal" because Japanese troops were occupying the country at that time, so the Philippine government did not have real independence. The Microsoft Encarta online encyclopedia describes the Philippines in 1943 as a "nominally independent Philippine republic" http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558570_12/Philippines.html Jlwiki 10:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

why is there the name "malaca' in parenthesis after the name 'malaya'? malaya is not equivalent to malaca, or rather, malacca. malacca is a city port within malaya, and is never used as a name equivalent to malaya.

What does this mean?

"Certain Italian agents arriving to Persia and Afganistan with similar pourposes, but only obtain some accords of actions along islamic tribes,but no advanced of simple proposes." I'd fix it but I'm not exactly sure what it means. I'm thinking...agreed on certain actions with Islamic tribes, but made no advanced plans? Everyking 15:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Axis flag

Does the Axis have their own flag? --206.255.32.51 14:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, neither did the Allies either.--Countakeshi 13:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Vichy Flag

I don't believe that is the Flag of Vichy France- The Vichy Flag was simply the French Tricolor, as Vichy France claimed to be the legitimate heir to the Third Republic. --24.147.128.141 19:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Vichy Flag shown is the Vichy Presidential Flag, the Axe symbol is meant to represent the Frankish tribes and the stars are there to represent Marshall Petain's military rank.

Vatican

Shouldn't the Vatican be in the same category of Switzerland? --Error 23:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cochinchina?

I have never heard Cochinchina used to describe the Reformed Government of the Republic of China. Cochinchina is a place in Vietnam.--Countakeshi 13:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

General Government

Look in the article, it was occupied territory under German rule and authority not a power of its own.Likewise Reichkommisariats...--Molobo 23:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Baltic States?

Why aren't the Baltic States included in here? Just becuase they were occupied by the USSR after the war, shouldn't let them off the hook for the crimes they commited and assisted in.


Do you have evidence that after the Germans pushed the Soviets out, the Baltic states freely aligned themselves with the Axis? (That is, the decisions were not made by a Nazi-appointed puppet regime?). That seems to me to be the deciding question, not whether Baltic governments were responsible for war crimes or not.

I'm pretty sure the common people of the Baltic States hated Hitler as much as they hated Stalin. Cameron Nedland 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


Now you are faulty. Estonians saw Hitler as a freedomer because we hated soviets(bolševiks) since 1918 :). Hitler gave order to hold Island of Saaremaa, last base of natzis in Estonia till the last man standing. The battle of Tehumardi sended natzis out of Saaremaa.

Propaganda

"The Soviets invaded another part of former Russian Empire, Finland, on November 30 and seized minor parts of its territory in order to protect, among others, the city of Leningrad,"

So, Soviet agression and attack agaisnt peaceful, democratic country of Finland was justified because Soviets wanted to protect Leningrad from evil Finns who were a treath to Soviet Union?

.........

(1)As a matter of fact, those concerns unfortunately became a harsh reality: Finland contributed to the bloodiest siege of Leningrad, helping to starve millions of civillians to death. So save these irrelevant "democratic" and "peaceful" labels for someone else. The "peaceful" and "democratic" country of Finland did not hesitate to side with the Nazis during the war, so this is irrelevant.

(2)Finland didin't contribute to the siege on Leningrad. And we only went beyond our original borders so that we could give USSR something in peace negotiationgs. How can someone claim that a country of around 3 million people of that time could pose a thread to USSR which had at more than 100 million at that time.

(answer to 1)Allow me to laugh sir. You are obviously viewing this subject from a very weird angle. If Soviet wouldn't have attacked Finland the war between the two nations would never have started. Soviet had NOTHING to fear from Finland. Finland was at that time a new country. It had a very weak and small army with out-dated weapons. Was this tiny nation really capable of attacking Soviet? No way, Finland couldn't propose a threath to Soviet, wich was why they allied with Germany AFTER THE SOVIET OFFENSIVE. Germany was Finlands only chanse to survive the war. So in reality Soviet is really to be blamed for the alliance between Germany and Finland. I can't even begin to imagine how you got the picture that you have in to your head. If it wasn't for Soviets mocking Finland wouldn't have played any part in WW2. If Finland wouldn't have allied with Germany it would have ended up as Poland, Estonia etc. But Finland got to keep it's independence.--Hazzlehoff 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Finland could be easily occupied by Germany and its territory used as a base for invasion in the USSR. Anyway Finland was definitely anti-Soviet, many whites escaped there and the head of its military Mannerheim was also the former white (in the USSR there was even term белофинны - white Finns). In fact there were strong nationalist forces in Finland that climed some Soviet territory, for example, Karelia.--Nixer 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Lotok Republic writing

I tried to clean up some of the writing for this paragraph but parts of it were incomprehensible to me (and I don't know the information myself). It sounds like it was written by someone whose first language is Russian (or another "Slavic language"), perhaps someone else could "transliterate" it better than me? Critic9328 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Doenitz was also Fuehrer not President?

I've read that Doenitz assumed the title of Fuehrer after Hitler committed suicide (the article describes him as "President'). Can anyone else confirm this? Critic9328 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No, he didn't--Lucius1976 10:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

He was in fact formally in charge after Hitler's suicide. He wasn't really Fuehrer though. He was in charge of the formal surrender of the German forces in Denmark, Holland and North-West Germany on May 4 after the British had succesfully cut off the Russian approach towards the Danish border. This would prove to be of vital importance during the Cold War as the Russian attempt to gain direct access to the Atlantic had been stopped. His role as president was therefor limited to securing the surrender of the last German forces to the Western Allies rather than the Russians. MartinDK 08:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

German flag naval not "war flag"?

Isn't the German flag portrayed actually the flag of the German navy during World War II? The regular Nazi flag had the white circle with a swastika in it centered, and lacked the Iron Cross in the upper-left hand. Perhaps the error is due to an interpretation error ("navy" in German=Kriegsmarine, someone thought that meant "War Flag"). Critic9328 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't Portugal "sympathetic"?

Wasn't Portugal also a sympathetic Fascist country at that time? Critic9328 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah they were, just like Spain and other dictatorships of the time. Cameron Nedland 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Germany helped the Spanish government suffocate the civil war.

Portugal was a right wing dictatorship but leaned heavily towards the allies, allowing them to use the Azores as a base.

Portugal was totally against the fascists and the only reason they didnt make the history books is that they didnt fight as much. My great grandfather was in the war fighting against the facists for portugal.

Portugal was anti-Axis, but not necessarily anti-Facist, it incorporated many elements of Facism, or at least gave them lip service in its New State, though the actual New State was very different from Facism, whereas Facism encoraged the politization of the masses, the New State encouraged their apathy, this is shown in the US Country Study of Portugal at www.countrystudies.us . Also, don't think all the dictatorships of the time were Facist, many used Facist elements, but Facism is an ideology, not just any anti-Communist dictatorship Jztinfinity 19:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Should Austria be included?

I know it was "incorporated" into Germany during the war but it certainly did its part in the war effort. Perhaps a special category needs to be created? e.g. "Countries which did not exist politically at the time but whose people directly supported the Axis war effort" (obviously less wordy than that). Critic9328 02:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead, add it. They were very pro-Hitler. Cameron Nedland 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to make an important distinciton between popular Nazi support and actual diplomatic governmental alliance. There's a big difference between a populace supporting its' occupier and a country agreeing to send its' armies off to war to fight with any ally. The Anschluss was not universally supported, though many did support the Austrian Nazi Party - in any event, Austria lost any further governmental independence on foreign relations and defence, and as such, how can we charge 'Austria' as being a belligerant Axis power? It just seems to me we're trying to put blame on people who lived 60 years ago. In any case this article looks quite good now, the distinctions of involvement have been made clear.

Nanjing puppet state

" how Beijing local government (East Yi Anti-Communist Autonomous Administration) between other examples."

I've removed this because it doesn't make sense. If you know what is meant, please re-add the appropriate text. Rich Farmbrough 16:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


2 sections desperately need a cleanup

  • Reichskommissariats of Ostland and Ukraine
  • White Russian Client State in Soviet Far East Rich Farmbrough 16:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. This is entirely incoherent as it stands. No meaning is apparent for most of it. ww 00:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

USA

Is it really fair to have the US listed as a country with good relations with the Axis? The Neutrality Act of '39 favored Britain and France.

I don't think it is fair to have the Spanish Flag on the this page. Though Spain was certainly sympathetic to the Axis powers, she was officially neutral.

A few comments. Since the article is about Axis Powers, and not neutrals (sympathetic or otherwise) there is no need to make any mention of states that were not activly part of the axis. having said that there is no need to exclude mention of countries because they were coerced into joining. We can talk about the circumstances in the article. DJ Clayworth 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very doubtful about the minor axis powers that would 're-emerge later'. It implies some connection of the later states with the Axis regimes which is difficult to show. I will await some evidence that the connection is justified. I've removed India as being the least justified. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is very inaccurate.

axis of forgetfulness

austria supplied large numbers of military forces and material after it was invaded, it is history.

poland also provided war material, troops and a staging ground for operations after its invasion.

sweden provided war material to the axis throughout the conflict and made no effort to declare against the axis or try to liberate norway or denmark. In fact sweddish gendarme were under orders to arrest allied sabetours aiding the norwegian resistance. also history.

yes , even the channel islands were used against their will as monitering stations throughout their ordeal in Nazi hands. also , unfortunately history. get over it--- all of you

Those are valid points. However asking us to get over it is a bit like asking the US to get over 9/11. And I am pretty sure THAT would make more than a few people upset... 83.72.128.13 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Origins Nazi Germany Enlarge Nazi Germany Kingdom of Italy Enlarge Kingdom of Italy Imperial Japan Enlarge Imperial Japan

The term was first used by Benito Mussolini, in November 1936, when he spoke of a Rome-Berlin axis arising out of the treaty of friendship signed between Italy and Germany on 25 October 1936. Mussolini declared that the two countries would form an "axis" around which the other states of Europe would revolve. This treaty was forged when Fascist Italy, originally opposed to Nazi Germany, was faced with opposition to its war in Abyssinia from the League of Nations and received support from Germany. Later, in May 1939, this relationship transformed into an alliance, called by Mussolini the "Pact of Steel". The Axis was extended to include the Empire of Japan as a result of the Tripartite Treaty of 27 September 1940. The pact was subsequently joined by Hungary (20 November 1940), Romania (23 November 1940), Slovakia (24 November 1940) and Bulgaria (1 March 1941). The Italian name Roberto briefly acquired a new meaning from "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo" between 1940 and 1945.

Major Axis Powers o Nazi Germany, under Führer and Chancellor Adolf Hitler (and in the last days of the war, Hitler's designated successor, President and Chancellor Karl Dönitz). o Fascist Italy (until 8 September 1943), under Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini who ruled Italy in the name of King Victor Emmanuel III of the House of Savoy. Afterwards, Victor Emmanuel III led it as a Western Allied Nation. o Imperial Japan, under Emperor Hirohito and Prime Minister Hideki Tojo (and in the last days of the war, Prime Ministers Kuniaki Koiso and Kantaro Suzuki).

Possible Soviet Participance?

Not sure whether this is right, but shouldn't the Soviet Union be considered part of the axis, at least until the start of Operation Barbarossa (sp?).

The Soviet Union allied with Germany from the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and agreed to go to war against Poland. Doesn't that then mean when war was declared on Germany by Britain and France, the USSR would also be affected by it?

Or am I completly missing something?--SSJ Undertaker 13:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are, they werent an ally a none agression pact means you wont attack each other for X amount of time not that you are an ally. They invaded Poland because that was the deal that was given, the Soviet Union would get some land and the germans would get some land. Read about the pact for more info. (Deng 07:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

Co-belligerence

Soviet Union was co-belligerent with Germany during the invasion of Poland in 1939, and should be included in the list. Western powers actually saw Soviet Union as Germany's ally.

It was sort of a co-belligerent, but it did not declare war on Poland (and certainly not on the western allies). Its official position was that, in the face of the supposed collapse of the Polish government, it was restoring order in eastern Poland. This was (obviously) complete bullshit, but I think it would be problematic, nevertheless to refer to the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent. Some notice of the Soviet Union's position from 1939-1941 would make sense, though. john k 14:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Read what I said a few lines up (Deng 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

The Soviet Union was not a Co-belligerent, they invaded Poland seperatly. Germany and Russia signed a non-aggresion treaty, but they were not allies. Oh course, everybody knows it was the Germans who broke that treaty. They never had any had any joint operations or anything. The USSR pretty much had their own side.

~Will 043

Romanian switch of sides at 23 august 1944

It isn't mentioned that after the fall of the "Legionary" regime in Romania, Romania became a Soviet Ally and fought against retreating germans. As Allied combatant, Romania is on the 3rd place in human casualties, and for that reason it should be at least mentioned that Romania hasn't been with the Axis for the entire war.

Romania, alongside Bulgaria (that was in a similar situation) are not generally credited with being allied with Allies at all. The treaty of 1944-08-23 is generally considered as a truce, with Romania being obliged, as part of the treaty, to supply the allies with manpower (it was that, or a full scale Soviet invasion). The Romanian "Switching sides" is generally taken either as a conditional surrender or as a truce, given the circumstances. It would be rather ridiculous to credit Romania (or for that matter Italy or Bulgaria) as part of the Allied war efforts, given that Romania had been fighting alongside The Axis for more than 3 years - it only participated to the Allied war efforts for 8 months and 16 days. Romania suffered around 60.000 military casualties while fighting for the Allies (I am using one of K. Hitchins' books). That would put Romania 8th or 9th in their allied war efforts. However, Romania lost around 250.000 while fighting for the Axis, and that would put them third in the Axis war effort.[citation needed] --83.103.179.161 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To User 83.103.179.161
I am not disputing above figures as I have no data available to me, but I am curious to know what your sources are.
Harry163 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I hereby propose the following changes to this article:

  • Move all "Controlled on/dependent on the Axis" to a new article, Nations invaded by the Axis Powers during WWII for example.
  • Find a proper definition of "Axis Power", then limit the countries listed to the matching nations.
  • Add one section under the countries defined as Axis Powers to discuss those nations that could be considered Axis Powers, but don't clearly meet the requirements of our definition. It is vital that this section be brief, and provide links to other articles the user can read to clarify the situation.

Superdix 08:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Puppet States

What is a puppet state, who were they in WWII, and what did they accomplish?

Changes to Article

I edited the article to remove graffiti from the article. People are tagging in the article, just thought I should let everyone know.

KingofRedRoses 10:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)KingofRedRoses

It seems it wont let me change the article. This is my first time using the account, perhaps someone can fix the errors, theyre in the "Membership in the Axis Portion Underneath the section on the three major powers.

KingofRedRoses 10:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)KingofRedRoses

Degree of Coordination

What was the level of cooperation between Germany and Japan? Specifically, how much input did Germany have into the attack on Pearl Harbor? Aepryus 00:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Korea (joseon)

Shouldn't Korea be included, in the same way as Austria? Phonemonkey 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Questionable statement on Finnish leaders

"In reality, both Ryti and Mannerheim were Nazi-hostile." At the end of the co-belligerents section of this article, the above sentence is stated. It seems, without a good source, merely a POV attempt to distance Finland from the Nazis. I'll agree to put it back in if it can be proved; otherwise, it should stay out. Picaroon9288 01:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Finalising Axis Powers

OK, I think we have a consensus of what constitutes an Axis power and how to define each. At the moment the article itself looks fairly good but it basically lacks citation. For any contributors still keeping an eye on this article you should try to remember the sources you used and try to put them in here. Nevertheless I think with citation this could be a winner. --Cuomo111 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reichskommissariats of Ostland and Ukraine

Have removed the following part from this section because it does not make any sense. Someone who knows this information should reword it and add it back in. JenLouise 06:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alfred Rosenberg, previously at commenced of Axis Eastern Front campaign, suggests the future administrative organization of the USSR to conquest lands in next Reichskommissariats: Ostland (Baltic States),Ukraine,Kaukasus (Caucasia lands) and Moskau (Moscow and the other Russian and European areas surrounding.) These territories extended from the European frontier to the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line. Mentioned proposes stay in line with "Lebensraumpolitik" and "Lebensraum im Osten" (the creation of more living space for Germans in the east) geopolitical strategies for future German east provinces expansion in benefits of "Aryan" generations in next centuries. These military and civil administrative policies in territories previously mentioned and respectives geopolitical and expansionist ambitious plans if maintaining until when Axis military situation turning in Stalingrad and Kursk during 1943-1944.

Denmark an Axis power?

In what way does Denmark belong as part of the Axis? The only reason the Danish government didn't go into exile is that Denmark was under the control of the German Foreign Office and not the German Army as such. Therefor the Danish government was not in danger of being arrested. This changed after 1943 and from there the only legitimate Danish government was de facto the selfproclaimed government in London. If Denmark was member og the Axis then by the same definition was Poland, The Netherlands and all other occupied countries. And such a statement is clearly insulting and obviously wrong. 83.72.128.13 14:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thailand technically Siam

Would it be appropriate to change the name of "Kindom of Thailand" to Siam, since it was technically refered to as such till 1949? TchussBitc 12:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)