Talk:Tripartite Pact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Older comments

On March 25th, 1941, Prince Paul (Pavle), Regent of Yugoslavia, signed the Tripartite Pact. It was not easy for Hitler to gain Yugoslavia's cooperation. There were strong anti-German feelings in the country, especially among the Serbian population. March 27th the regime was overthrown by a military coup d'état with British support, and the 18 years old King Peter II of Yugoslavia seized power.
Although the new rulers opposed Nazi-Germany, they also feared that if Hitler attacked Yugoslavia, Britain was not in any real position to help. For the safety of the country, they declared that Yugoslavia would adhere to the Tripartite Pact.
Postponing Operation Barbarossa the Germans simultaneously attacked Yugoslavia and Greece. From April 6th, Luftwaffe pounded Belgrade to the ground for three days and three nights. German ground troops moved in, and Yugoslavia capitulated on April 17th.

I don't follow. Should explain why Germany decided to attack despite Yugoslavia's adherence to the Tripartite Pact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempshill (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 October 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Yugoslavia was such an important aspect of the war and confusing issue, it deserved better than this confusing over-simplification.AthabascaCree (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree, while I understand he is trying to be succinct, here he is being so short as to be mis-leading.
First, he should point out that Yugoslavia declared itself neutral in Sep 39, but because Hitler had to go save Mussolini regarding Greece, Hitler spent the winter pressuring the prince to join the Tripartite Pact, which it did in 25 March 1941. While there were various let-out clauses, there were also bribes and Yugoslavia was to aquire Salonika in return for it's participation. Otherwise Hitler didn't need Yugoslavia except for a shorter line-of-communication with Bulgaria and to help Mussolini conquer Greece, and of course to keep the British from having friendly territory to land in should they wish to.
Despite the aforementioned(found on Page 1294 of the Greece section of the Oxford encyclopedia on ww2), there was a successful coup nomimally under General Dusan Simovic proclaiming King Peter to be of age now. But immediately the coalition regime started falling apart and to keep it, Vice-Premier and Croation Peasant Party(see how important it is to mention that Yugoslavia wasn't made up of just Serbs as this author does?), demanded the reaffirmation of both Croation Home Rule and adherence to the Tripartite Pact. Which was done.
The problem was that Hitler was so enraged by the coup in the first place, he issued Directive No. 25, decreeing Yugoslavia's obliteration. Ironically only 24 of the 52 Axis divisions that invaded Yugoslavia were German and as we have done today, Germany cut up Yugoslavia into the same mini-states, rewarding those more pro-Nazi and punishing those less pro-Nazi.
I know some Yugoslavs were offended by this author's account because of the fact is that the original Prince Regent Paul was in fact an anglophile, and that it was because he and his Serbian supporters wavered too long before committing to the Allied side, before they knew it, France had surrendered.
A failing of this wiki-author is over-simplifying Yugoslavia as if if was only Serbs. But you'll notice he often intentionally omits historical facts that don't go along with his pre-disposed propaganda track.
Something else I find incredible that this wiki-author keeps refusing to allow us to point out is the fact that this Yugoslav/Greece campaign set back Hitler's 'Operation Barbarossa Plan' by about 6 weeks; and if you consider how close the Germans came to capturing Moscow or say Leningrad before that record-breaking winter froze them put, it might very well have saved Stalin.
So I hope my explanation makes more sense than his without being too long. Cheers to my friend Dubrovnic who was so offended by this article.Befuddler (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've standardised the dates in the article: Wikipedia allows users to display dates according to preference if the wikitext follows standard format.

The article mentions the US a lot. I was not aware that that country was an Axis power. I suggest that the article shows US POV. The response of the Soviet Union and other Allied powers to Axis threat is just as valid.

Gareth Hughes 12:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the biased American Point of View here and in the related articles. Very disappointing. But as you'll see proven below, this author refuses to admit to the historical fact that the USSR was open to and was in fact invited to join to make it a Pact of Four instead. A totally corrupted American/victor-biased representation of the topic at hand.

Befuddler (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while I agree that this is without a doubt american-biased, it's 'victor-biased' in fact and totally Soviet-biased too.

I've been following this for weeks and get disgusted each time I see a properly documented correction to this piece of bias only to have it cut/edited out by the author or wiki-gods again and again.

If it were me on this Yugoslav topic, I might point out that the reason Hitler wanted to bother getting Yugoslavia into the Tripartite Pact was because of Italy's failure with Greece pushing them into British hands long before back in 1940, and the reason the Serbs were pro-British was because in WW1 they served together on the Salonika Front 1915-18 and that Serbs dominated the officer corps.
That the Slovenes didn't see anything they liked while the Croats were actually more pro-Italian. The Macedonians similarily looked at the Bulgarians as liberators to help them set up an independent state. Basically, everyone knew Yugoslavia was back then like it was till we divided it up recently, an unreliable region of ethnic tension no-one wants to rely on. But this author doesn't even touch on that.AthabascaCree (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


(UTC)

[edit] too much theory?

>This declaration of war against the United States was arguably the greatest mistake made by the Third Reich

Surely it was a mistake, but I think that neither declaration of war against USA, nor the Operation Barbarossa deserve the title of "Greatest Mistake made by the Third Reich". It's simply too subjective.

I agree with the author here. It was definately one of his worst mistakes. On the one hand, I agree with the critics, Britain was far closer to being starved out of the war than we admitted to ourselves till recently and Donitz felt that, with Goering's support(which he would never get), he could starve Britain into submission within a certain period if he had permission to unrestricted attacks on American shipping and Allied convoys even before Halifax. But on the otherhand, I agree with the author in that by other reasoning, not only was Hitler totally unprepared for war with America, having no plan, apparently shocking even Borhman let alone Donitz and Mussolini...but even if you know America is moving towards war with you, why rush towards it? Roosevelt couldn't get Congress to declare full-mobilisation even after Pearl Harbour, but after Hitler's declaration of war, that road would become less steep for him. My point is, maybe he should've made Roosevelt declare war on him instead and kept American public opinion less indignant and therefore less mobilised.

AthabascaCree (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

>While the plans of the German military effort included an eventual attack directly upon the U.S

Where do you get this? let's see a source.AthabascaCree (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the source for this. Hitler might have considered attack on USA in late future, but AFAIK German military never made plans for an actual invasion of USA. (Although it did make plans for invasions of Switherland, Italy, Sweden, Turkey, Hungary and many other countries which didn't directly oppose Germany)

You hit on a good point that you will see this author do over and over here, propaganda. He will claim, without telling you all the circumstances around the topic, that just because an enemy could do something, that that meant they were planning on and bound to do that thing beligerantly. While of course that rule never applies to us. The reality we can prove to this point, and we're always having more of the truth revealed the more Secrecy Act files become unsealed, was that once Generalstabshef der Luftwaffe, Generalleutnant Walter Wever died in a plane accident before the war, so did the German long-range heavy bomber lobby. Hitler switched priority to shorter-ranged faster lighter bombers instead.Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
However, it is true that others kept working on Wever's idea of bombers that could hit the furthest most Soviet industries hidden behind the Urals in Siberia, without thinking of targeting North America at the time. Besides the Me264 there would also be the He 274, the Ju390 and Ta400 even pipe-dream Silbervogel and multi-stage A4/V2 inter-continental bombers. None of this means Hitler was planning on attacking America all along. There is no doubt Hitler was considering war with America the more American flaunted International if not American Neutrality Laws, but that motive for planning to attack America only came LATER, as the critic rightly points out, not from the start as inferred here.
There is a video series I've got around here somewhere from Time-somebody I think, with one episode about 'Hitler's war with America' or something like that. But once you watch it, including recently unsealed information from Secrecy Acts, you realize how last-minute and poorly planned and prepared let alone organized the 'infiltration' efforts even were, where each one of the few Uboat landed conspirators was caught without even meeting any member of the Klu Klux Klan or any Nazi-sympathetic group or American spy network, not a single rail line or bridge was even blown. You come away with the impression Hitler wasn't even serious about such things even after America was at war with him. The author's insinuation here is that Hitler planned on attacking America ALL ALONG and that's why he declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour is propaganda, not history.Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


>This would allow the creation of long range bombers

Didn't you hear that in 1941 Germany already posessed Me-264 bombers which were capable of bombing New York City?

Oh please. Back in 1941 the Me-264 was still in design stage. It wasn't until December of 1942 that the unarmed Me264 V1 completed it's maiden test flight as a recon model. Willy Messerschmitt was unable to keep his promises and the second prototype, nearly 80% completed, was destroyed soon after Me 265 V1 was in an enemy air raid in summer of 1944. Source "German Heavy Bombers" Manfred Griehl/Joachim Dressel 1994.AthabascaCree (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, the three last paragraphs seem contain too much unnecessary theory. Just mentioning that Germany declared war on USA despite not being obliged to do so would be enough.

I also heard that right after the coup in Yugoslavia, Moscow signed a treaty of alliance with new Yugoslavian government. Maybe I will add that when I find an actual proof for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami321 (talk • contribs) 01:23 - 01:29, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I am going to make a few changes, especially because this "achieve world domination" mythos is exactly that - common held belief that reflects Allied propaganda. You further reveal you lack of knowledge on the subject when you go into detail about control of Africa. In reality, it was only Rommel who broke from the defensive strategy in Africa and the defensive campaign only came into being because of failed Italian military plans. I started to go into detail about the linkeage between Germany and Japan and how this affected the war. Possibly the same thing could be done for Italy. Speaking of German ingenuity and scientific research, has anyone ever heard of this? http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Einstein-Antigravity.pdf Strange.--68.45.21.204 02:36 - 03:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Strange, YES! weird huh? Ever see the thing on the Japanese giant ray-gun?

or the CIA and KGB stuff on working with psychics? that's a great link, thanks!Befuddler (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. In actual fact, Hitler seemed to be sticking with his own self-set limits of 'Lebensraum'(living space for Aryans) from Northern Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic because, even at his height, he only annexed Normandy(whose people he considered ancestors of the Northmen Vikings) and left the rest of France to Vichy. He even passed off policing of Southern European allies to the Italians. He obviously didn't want to invade the UK, calling it a 'global stabilising force' and of course a Nordic people being 'Anglo-Saxon', like the Americans and Canadians for that matter to his mind. This idea that he was out for global conquest is just more proof of this author's propagandic rather than historical view of the topic. Hitler wanted his Lebensraum, meaning Northern Europe excluding the UK from the Urals to the Atlantic. Mussolini wanted to ressurrect the old Roman Empire, at least where it didn't conflict with Hitler's Lebensraum. As for Japan, their Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, represented unfairly by this author as pure propaganda when others here have quoted Japanese leaders obviously sincere in their belief of it over pure Imperialism, he mis-represents that as well. This article fits ideally into British historian and Russian translator Geoffrey Jukes' criticism of how embarassing it is that our own historians to this day still prefer to regurjitate our war-time propaganda rather than recheck the facts and represent the impirical truth, however embarassing to our side. This article is way too much continuation of our own propaganda instead of the latest impirical unbiased truth international readers look to Wikipedia for.Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


The agreement formalized the Axis Powers' partnership, and can be read as a warning to the United States to remain neutral in World War II — or become involved in a war on two fronts.[citation needed] The pact the three nations agreed that for the next ten years they would "stand by and co-operate with one another in... their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things... to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned." They recognized each other's spheres of interest and undertook "to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked" by a country not already involved in the war, excluding the Soviet Union. The pact supplemented the previous German-Japanese Agreement and the Anti-Comintern Pact, both of 1936 and helped overcome the rift that had developed between Japan and Germany following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939.

Typical victor propaganda. Finally even victor historians like Slavinsky(Russian), Jukes(British), Macksey, Pritchard even American John Toland whose work exemplifies the reversal of historical opinion and record on 'facts' as time goes by and more records, especially those once sealed by Secrecy Acts, are studied are brave enough start admitting to and correcting our own long-repeated propagandic historical record, 'privilege of the victors' as Napoleon would say. The fact is that when Hitler was signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact during the very same days the Japanese and Russian armies were clashing on border incidents along Manchuria, Japan declared that Hitler had not only violated and nullified the Anti-Comintern Pact, but betrayed them outright. So when any author says the Tripartite Pact was even an extension of the Anti-Comintern Pact, that's pure 'victor propaganda privilege'. The irony here is that even the Anti-Comintern Pact was a matter of debate in Japan.

"The Japanese War Machine" Chartwell Press 1976
Page 38 "In November 1936 Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany, a move designed to secure Japan against the possibility of Russian intervention. This pact was engineered not by the normal diplomatic channels, but largely by the Japanese Military Attache in Berlin, the Japanese Ambassador being excluded from the discussions." But until those British/American authors wrote that book in 75 based on new research, that was definately not the impression of the Pact I was taught in school. Obviously the author of this article is either still unaware of these newer rechecked historical facts, or intentionally trying to omit them like any good propagandist.


"The Oxford Companion to WWII" Oxford Companion Press, New York 1995
Page 606 "Moreover, the Japanese were deeply resentful of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939, of which Germany had given them no advance notice. As a result, JAPAN DECLARED ITS STRICT NEUTRALITY."


That is definatley NOT the impression the author of this article is leaving the reader.

Page 862 "Pact of Steel", Mussolini's name for a military alliance between Italy and Germany which was signed in Berlin on 22 May 1939 by the two contries' foreign ministers, Ciano and Ribbentrop.It declared that either country would come to the aid of the other if it were attacked and athe Italians signed it on the verbal understanding that neither power would provoke war before 1943. Ciano recorded in his diary that Hitler was well satisfied with the Pact, and confirmed that Mediterranean policy would be directed by Italy. However, the Pact's political effect was much reduced by Japan's REFUSAL TO JOIN IT.

"
Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, these wiki author's on the topic leave these MAJOR facts out. The one pact that Mussolini nick-named 'Axis' was the one pact that Japan deliberately refused to join. So I agree with those braver historians out there who not only point out this is why Italy refused to declare war on Poland, nor even France and Britain when they declared war on Germany, but only after Mussolini learnt the French were throwing in the towel...but also those who point out this proves the Japanese claim they never considered themselves part of the 'Axis Pact', which was referred to by Mussolini only to relate to the Rome-Berlin relationship. But again, these wiki articles deliberately omit such information to intentionally? perpetuate old propaganda rather than new impirical historical fact.
So how can the Tripartite Pact be an extension of the Anti-Comintern Pact the Japanese declared themselves 'strictly neutral' over after the betrayal of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, or the 'Pact of Steel' which the Japanese refused to join because of its very terms of provoking war(something English historians I note conveniently avoid mentioning).
Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Then when you will later see evidence by specialist Russian and English historians specialists on Russian-Japanese and English-Japanese relations, using the most recent unbiased viewing of not only diplomatic but newly released intelligence files. This evidence will show the Japanese reluctantly resolved to the idea of 'if you can't beat them, join them' and since Germany wasn't going to help them against Russia(the whole point behind the Anti-Comintern Pact), then Japan might as well join Germany in making Russia an ally instead. It wasn't ONLY to dissuade the Americans from entering either the European or Chinese war, from the Japanese perspective, they saw the Tripartite Pact as becoming a Pact of Four to INCLUDE the Soviet Union as an ally. That would be even more likely to keep America out of the war. But these wiki authors on Japan and ww2 continue to omit this knewly acknowledged knowledge and mis-represent Japan's motives regarding the Tripartite Pact, out-right omitting the existance of the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact signed just weeks before Germany would invade Russia, while the Japanese were still under the impression Germany was helping them get an alliance with the USSR instead. The fact the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact is totally omitted here seems to prove Geoffrey Jukes' Preface criticism of unethical historical record in the book "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" by Boris Slavinsky, translated and contributed by English historian and specialist on ww2 Britan Foreign Office and Japan Geoffrey Jukes 2005.Befuddler (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tripartite Pact was subsequently joined by Hungary (November 20, 1940), Romania (November 23, 1940), and Slovakia (November 24, 1940). Bulgaria joined on March 1, 1941, prior to the arrival of German troops.

I totally agree about 'too much theory'.
First, the term Axis referred to the 1939 'offensive' Pact of Steel between Rome and Berlin that Tokyo refused to join.
Second, the Japanese considered the 1936 Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany nullified with the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact obviously.
Third, prove to us that the Japanese ratified in some treaty renaming the Tripartite Pact as the Axis Pact, otherwise treat them as separate treaties.
Fourth, the Japanese signed the Tripartite Pact, which unlike the Pact of Steel nicknamed 'Axis Pact' by Mussolini, was a defense pact and Japan signed it as much to improve relations if not ally with the Soviet Union as to keep America out of either war.
Fifth, even the Oxford Encyclopedia on the Companion to WWII agrees with these fellows that Bulgaria and Yugoslavia did repudiate the treaty almost immediately for the same reason as Japan. They joined under the impression it was to encourage alliance with the Soviet Union, not war with it.
Finally, by totally omitting the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact and the fact that it was Washington, not Tokyo, who refused last minute face-to-face appeals for peace, your introduction and entire article does come across with a definate pro-American anti-Japanese bias.Clousseau (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Focus on Tripartite Act

The last 2 paragraphs should go entirely. They don't relate to the Tripartite act at all. Maybe they'd be better placed on a page regarding the US involvement in the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J2xshandy (talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to correct this, and accompany some of the contributor's ideas in the last section of my revision. Looks like Rich removed them altogether though. --68.45.21.204 03:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The Tripartite Pact was NOT the Axis Pact.

At least not that I can find evidence for so far.
I see no evidence where all the members of the Tripartite Pact, particularily Japan, signed ratified documents agreeing to rename or even call the "Tripartite Pact" as the "Axis Pact".
Oh, I see lots of 'proofs' that OUR side referred to the Tripartite Pact as the the 'Axis', but just because all our quoted experts said Iraq and Saddam Hussein were allied to Bin Ladin and Alquaeda did not make it true, did it?

Now I'm not saying there isn't any proof.
All I'm saying is that so far, I've seen none. At one time all OUR experts/authorities said Iraq was part of the 'Axis' linked to Afghanistan, and North Korea and at at first Pakistan, then not Pakistan, and at first not Iran but now Iran. No matter how many books or speeches we can quote copying all those claims, did not make it true and makes our media and historical accounts embarassingly propagandic.
All our quoted experts and those selective Iraquies we quoted claimed it was a 'slam dunk' that Iraq had WMDs, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Atomic bomb and new production and stockpiles of nerve gas on the way and so on.

So until someone proves we didn't do the same thing here in our historical accounts, until someone proves that Japan signed some ratified documents agreeing to rename the Tripartite Pact the Axis Pact, then we should stop referring to Japan maybe even others as part of the 'Axis Pact'.

Wanna know why?
I had a teacher who once asked me what we thought of when we saw the term 'Axis Pact' and then same question for the term 'Tripartite Pact'.
On Axis Pact page I wrote I thought of the Final Solution, genocide of Jews, Auschwitz and enslavement of slavic peoples like my ancestry.
That is NOT what I wrote when I thought of the Tripartite Pact.

I don't care if critics say the Japs only helped save Jews from the Nazis(where we wouldn't) because they had the 'racist' view that Jews would be a positive to build an economic infrastructure for their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere thing rather than for purely humanitarian reasons.
Being of partly slavic even apparently Jewish ancestry, I used to try to prove Japan's ongoing friction with Russia was because they were ideologically tied to the Nazi agenda through the Axis I also thought meant the Tripartite Pact. But when asked to prove it, the more I tried and researched the more it seems to be like our modern claims of proof Iraq was a member of the Axis with Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein was allied with Bin Ladin against us in 9/11.
I'm tired of getting into debates with foreigners and finding we can't actually prove certain commonly accepted claims even in history.

So it is important to distinguish the difference between what most of us perceive to mean the 'Axis' and 'Tripartite Pact'. I'm personally fed up with being fed propaganda and expected to stand by the claim only everyone else falls for propaganda. It's sure embarassing us today.

So until someone can prove that the Japs signed and ratified some treaty agreeing to rename the Triparte Pact to the Axis Pact instead, I also call for the cessation of using the term Axis linked to Japan.Clousseau (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japan and the Jews

This is an interesting topic, but it seems out of place here. The Tripartite Pact says nothing about the Jews. I suggest this material belongs in an article on the history of anti-Semitism.

[edit] Japan not part of Axis?

Befuddler 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering if it is historically incorrect to keep referring to Japan as an active military ally of Germany's under some 'Axis Pact'.

First, Japan signed NO documented pact, treaty, alliance or agreement with the title 'Axis'.
The nick-name 'Axis' was for the one treaty Japan refused to join.
The nick-name 'Axis' was used by Italy to refer to the 'Pact of Steel'(May39). It literally referred to the roughly 13 degree East longitudinal axis that linked Berlin and Rome, not Tokyo.

Second, even if we 'english'(victors), claim to have the right to rename pacts and alliances as we wish to indicate 'Axis' applies to the 'Tripartite Pact' instead of the 'Pact of Steel', then it is STILL historically incorrect.

The agreements were NOT all versions of the same original agreement. They were completely different and separate treaties. Like the 'Allies' of WWI included Japan and Italy while the 'Allies' of WWII did not.

Nov36...The 'Anti-Comintern Pact' was a mutual defense pact directed against the USSR that Japan did sign.
May39...The 'Pact of Steel' is signed by Germany and Italy. Japan's refusal to join proves these were two separate treaties/pacts.
This is the pact coined 'Axis' by Mussolini, the one Japan did not join.
Aug39...The 'Anti-Comintern Pact' is declared violated and voided by Germany's signing of the 'Nazi-Soviet Pact'. Japan declares strict neutrality to Germany.
Nov40...The 'Tripartite Pact' was a new treaty signed over a year later by Japan, Germany and Italy. This was another mutual defense pact this time directed mostly against the USA.
Apr41...The'Non-Aggression Pact/Friendship Treaty' signed by Japan with the USSR, proving the separate distinctness of the aforementioned pacts.
Jun41...Germany and her allies invade the USSR. The fact that Japan and the USSR honour their pact is further proof the aforementioned pacts are separate entities AND that neither Japan nor the Soviet Union considered Japan to be an active military ally of Germany, however you nick-name the German alliance.

This time-line not only proves these were separate pacts but ALSO that neither Japan nor the Soviet Union considered Japan part of any active German military alliance, nick-named 'Axis' or otherwise.
If Japan were a military ally of Germany's, she would have declared war on the Soviet Union with Germany and her allies.
(Good thing for us she wasn't and didn't). In fact, another mis-representation of history here is including Bulgaria as an enemy of the Soviet Union. Bulgaria never declared war on the USSR or vs/vs either.

The Tripartite Pact was, at best, a 'nullified' mutual defense agreement. Mutual defense pacts are nullified/cancelled as soon as one of the members violates it(ie Nazi-Soviet Pact) or by attacking someone else(ie German invasion of the USSR).
I can prove through quotes from the Oxford Companion to WWII(1995) that not only was the Anti-Comintern Pact NOT considered a military alliance, but that the subsequent new Tripartite Treaty was pretty much nullified even as a mutual defense pact by secret clauses put in at Japan's request.

<If John and Mark convinced Mathew to join their 'anti-bully' alliance, hereby named the 'Lennon Pact', but then started bullying someone else themselves; then the 'anti-bullying' alliance no longer exists. Especially if Mathew refuses to join them in bullying the third party, it is wrong to keep claiming Mathew is allied to them in the 'Lennon Pact'.

No matter how much Hitler and Mussolini might think that they could convince Japan it was obligated to make their enemies Japan's enemies by using the unsigned term 'Axis', that didn't make it so. Same way no matter how much we want to claim Iraq was behind 9/11 won't make it fact. Just because we, the victors, write the history books, doesn't mean everything we say was necessarily true.

If we want to re-define 'military ally' to mean someone who, without declaration of war, severing of relations even trade, otherwise supports one side in a war, then it appears we are being hypocritical.

It could be argued that even before Pearl Harbour the USA traded, cooperated, coordinated even provided combatants with Britain and China far more than Japan ever did with Germany. If, in order to define Japan as a military ally of Germany's in ww2, we have to expand the definition of what makes a military ally to mirror America's relationship with China and Britain before Pearl Harbour, maybe we should re-think our wording here.

We should then state that Japan was at war with the Allies as of Sep 1940(signing of the Tripartite Pact), not Dec 1941.

We can't have it both ways. We can't say this definition applies only to our enemies, not to us. Otherwise we are being the hypocrites so much of the world accuses us of being after-all.

The histories of the former Soviet Union also deny that Japan was part of any active military alliance with Germany, whether you try to arbitrarily rename the Tripartite Pact 'Axis' or not. That is why when Stalin declared war on his invaders in 1941, he did NOT include Japan nor even Bulgaria for that matter. Another historical mis-representation here.

I propose that if wikipedia wants to appear historically accurate, neutral and unbiased, that whoever has the final say in editing here, cease supporting the following historical mis-representations (and propaganda?):


a) cease referring to any 'Axis Pact' as an official active military alliance.

Just because we say Iraq, Iran and North Korea are part of some 'Axis of Evil', does not make it historically accurate nor true.

b) cease trying to define any active military alliance 'Axis Pact' by the mutual defense 'Tripartite Pact'.

c) cease referring to the 'Tripartite Pact' as anything but a defunct mutual defense pact.

d) cease referring to Japan as an active military ally of Germany's.


If it were true that the Tripartite Pact was in fact the Axis Pact and an active military alliance between Japan and Germany/Italy, then we might have lost the war in Russia as the Siberian armies that saved the European front in 1941/42 would have been at least facing the Japanese instead.

Japan was no more a member of the 'Axis' than Canada is a member of America's 2002 Coalition Invasion of Iraq. Just because Canada is part of a mutual defense pact with the USA in NORAD, does not make it a member of the USA-led 2002 Coalition against Iraq.

This kind of ignorant, or worse, deliberate mis-representation of historical fact not only makes us appear hypocritically re-writing of history and re-defining of words/terms, but is also what allows leaders of any decade to convince their people to support unnecessary if not unjust war efforts(ie Japan invade China or Pearl Harbour).

I put it to the wikipedia editors to represent unbiased historical fact here.

Thanks for having the patience reading all this over-worded bunk?

Thanks for your time and consideration and please consider all this.

Cheers

[edit] Japan was a Member of the Axis Alliance!

The reason why Japan did not attack the Soviet Union was that it was not obligated to,
ARTICLE 5. Japan, Germany and Italy affirm that the above agreement affects in no way the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia.

Germany, Italy and Japan even though they not at war with the Soviets simultaneously, they were still united against Britain and it's Commonwealth, the United States and the rest of the Allied nations.

You are talking about the 'Tripartite Pact'. Until you can prove that Japan agreed and ratified a document renaming the 'Tripartite Pact' as the 'Axis Pact', Japan was NOT part of any Axis Pact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clousseau (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Japan and the Soviet Union did engage each other in 1945(August Storm). If you are basing your arguement on the fact that Japan did not attack the Soviet Union then look at the case of Brazil, Brazil declared war on Germany and Italy in August 1942, receiving lend lease and economic aid from the US, it allowed the use of it's airbases to hunt U-boats and even sent an expeditionary force to Italy (FEB), however Brazil did not declare war on Japan until 6/6/1945([1]/ See Brazil) almost after a month after the German surrender. From your reasoning that means that Brazil was not part of the Allies! The Poland, Norway and Czechoslovakia(whose goverments were in exile) contributed nothing against the war against Imperial Japan yet they are still considered part of the Allies.

No, we're basing our arguments on the fact that:

a) The USSR happily signed the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact in April 1941(due to expire in April 1946 with required announcement of intent to not renew the pact 1 year before expiration), only weeks before the German invasion and considered it honoured by both sides all that critical time.
b) The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact was signed BEFORE any military pact with us, Britain or America.
c) That, as even Russian historian Boris Slavinsky points out, therefore the Soviet declaration of war on and attack of Japan was against the very founding laws and principles of the Atlantic and UN Charters.
d) Not to mention the fact that by encouraging and supporting Stalin to do so, that it seems no different than what we charged our enemy leaders as War Crimes for. Hell, I started out here on your side and the more you 'discuss' with your critics here, the more I'm changing my mind on all this and embarassed by our part. God, the more I studied this at first to try to support you, now agree wih the critics, the more I see why the world calls us hypocrites lol. Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Japan was an active military ally of Germany - The Yanagi Missions(as stated in the article), Technical Co-operation(Ki-61 Hien had DB-601 engine, Mitsubishi J8M and Mitsubishi Ki-202 were based on German designs etc., Military co-operation in the form of the Monsun Gruppe.

I agree yet disagree with you here. Like "Operation Caesar", where in February 1944 Hitler finally agreed to license the 'Swallow' Me262 jet fighter by sending U-864, a long-haul U-boat loaded with a dis-assembled Me262 and senior level Japanese, though not German, aeronautical scientists and engineers along with architect reports and designs, though some critics wonder why he sent Cpt Rolf Reimer Wolfram, who was totally inexperienced. Why not send at least a veteran captain like Lieutenant Johann "Dynamite" Fehler for such an important mission? Also 2000 flasks of mercury! Used for bomb detonations. When I watched this series on the enemy atom bomb programs and this German-Japanese trade, this is a big environmental issue for modern Norway unfortunately.Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Fehler was the captain of U-234 that was finally sent by Hitler to Japan in April 1945 with illustrious passengers Lieutenant General Ulrich Kesssler of the Luftwaffe; Colonels Sandrat and Neishling, also of the Luftwaffe; civilian rocket and jet experts; and most mysterious of all, Lieutenant Commanders Hideo Tomonaga and Genzo Shoji of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Also on board were two Me262 jet fighters, the patents and engineering documents for tooling etc and most interesting of all, 560 kg of uranium oxide!! But upon hearing of Donitz's surrender, he decided to call off the mission and surrender to the nearest Allied base leaving the Japanese, unable to convince Hitler's 'chosen men' to follow through with the mission anyways, committed suicide.
I won't go into the enemy atom bomb debate. I know they knew the Riken factory for the Japanese bomb project had already been destroyed and I know the Germans needed to produce 10 times more heavy water than they were. I also know recent evidence points more to a power-plant option to relieve reliance on oil, but that's not the point.
The point is I agree with the author's point of how, by the end of the war, Hitler was willing to share everything with the Japs.Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
But, then I have to agree with you others. Why then did Hitler refuse to share these technologies even 4 years earlier when they could have made a difference? That does seriously deflate this author's claim of bi-lateral sincerity, value and effect of the Tripartite Pact as far as trade and technology were concerned. That's clearly not the case.
If it were, even before Pearl Harbour, Japan could have had the 88mm flak and anti-tank gun, the superior Fw190 instead of inferior Me109, the aformentioned He178 and 280 jet fighters, the superior German tanks, superior radar, superior sonar and night-fighter technology and tactics, all with-held from Japan for years after signing the Tripartite Pact.Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And worse, where was the Japanese trade to the Germans? I agree with Befud, if the Japs had sent the Germans plans for the A6m2 Zero, we could have lost the Battle of Britain and the war. If the Japs had sent their plans for their superior long-range submarines, capable of greater speed, range, depth and endurance, let alone the Type93 Long-lance torpedo with which we could have lost the Battle of the Atlantic, Mediterranean or Murmansk Convoy route.Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The author is right, by the end of the war, Germany was honouring that part of the Tripartite Pact, but he leaves out the fact that it was way too little way too late. The mentioned Ki61 Hien was 2 years late, the J8m license of the Me163 also 2 years late and never mass-produced when they could have and the Ki-202 license of the Me262, same thing. Had they been licensed to Japan when they could have been, they could definately made a big difference in our war effort against Japan. But the author AGAIN, conveniently leaves out those vital facts for some reason.Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about it, and remember, I started out agreeing with you, the more I see this 'like a life-guard waiting until after the drowning victim was half way to the bottom before throwing out the life-preserver. Then someone saying, well, he followed through on his contractual obligations whole-heartedly.'Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Alliance was also referred to as the Axis by German propaganda.

"The Strength of the Axis

National Socialist Germany is in the best position to understand Japan. We and the other nations of the Axis are fighting for the same goals that Japan is fighting for in East Asia, and understand the reasons that forced it to take action. We can also understand the driving force behind Japan's miraculous rise, for we National Socialists also put the spirit over the material. The Axis Pact that ties us to Japan is not a treaty of political convenience like so many in the past, made only to reach a political goal. The Berlin-Rome-Tokyo alliance is a world-wide spiritual program of the young peoples of the world. It is defeating the international alliance of convenience of Anglo-Saxon imperialist monopolists and unlimited Bolshevist internationalism. It is showing the world the way to a better future. In joining the Axis alliance of the young peoples of the world, Japan is using its power not only to establish a common sphere of economic prosperity in East Asia. It is also fighting for a new world order. New and powerful ideas rooted in the knowledge of the present and the historical necessities of the future that are fought for with fanatical devotion have always defeated systems that have outlived their time and lost their meaning."

Das Geheimnis japanischer Kraft (Berlin: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1943).

Is not that exactly the criticism? You are actually proving the point against your claim. That instead of providing a Japanese gov't-signed agreement renaming the Tripartite Pact or any other relationship with the Germans as 'Axis', you provide only the admitted PROPAGANDISTS, some commanders even bureaucrats or our leaders making the claim.

Clousseau (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal...how it all makes sense if we just admit they were 2 separate wars that overlapped chronologically.

You wrote: The reason why Japan did not attack the Soviet Union was that it was not obligated to, ARTICLE 5. Japan, Germany and Italy affirm that the above agreement affects in no way the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia.

Not really. You are actually proving my point that we keep trying to redefine a ‘defensive’ alliance as an ‘offensive’ alliance. The actual reason Japan was not obligated to attack the USSR with the German-led alliance was because of Article 3.

ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

So even if there were NO ‘Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact’, between Japan and the USSR before the invasion, Japan was not obligated to declare war on the USSR. It's simple, when part of a 'defense pact', you are only obligated to fight if someone 'attacks' it.

You wrote: Germany, Italy and Japan even though they not at war with the Soviets simultaneously, they were still united against Britain and it's Commonwealth, the United States and the rest of the Allied nations.

Not true. What I am saying is that they were 2 different wars, (like today’s Afghan and Iraq wars). If what you say was true, then the pre-American ‘Allies’ would have been at war with Japan as of April 1940 when the Tripartite Pact was signed. THEY WERE NOT. Not only were the British and Japanese still at peace and trading with eachother, but the British were even stepping up efforts to try to convince Japan to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance 1902 that helped Japan defeat Russian in 1905 and helped Britain defeat Germany in ww1. Remember, until Churchill learnt from Ultra(British reading of German codes) that Hitler was going to betray his alliance with Stalin, he was worried he might have to war with the other half of the Nazi-Soviet alliance too.

As for being united against us;

“…in practice, there was extraordinarily little co-ordination of military or diplomatic activities during the war. Hitler and Mussolini, the leaders of Germany and Italy, undoubtedly admired each other immensely, but this admiration was not shared by their respective military and naval leaders nor by their respective peoples….Japan: In that case there was perhaps and inversion of the situation between Germany and Italy, in that the military and naval leaders did have high regard for the abilities of their wartime partners, but there is no evidence that the two European Axis leaders and Tojo Hideki, the leader of Japan until the summer of 1944, particularily cared for each other. As for Tojo’s successors, Koiso Kuniaki and Suzuki Kantaro, neither had a high opinion of the Euroepan Axis leaders, who in turn appear to have known next to nothing of about either.” (P96 “The Oxford Companion to WWII”)

Zhukov used the new T34s against the Japanese in 1939, the fact that Guderian was totally surprised by them 2 years later shows how 'united' Japan was with Germany. "Zhukov arrived in early June and began gathering a powerful force (35 battalions, 20 cavalry squadrons, 500 aircraft, and 500 of the new and powerful T34 tanks)."

Can you provide the source for the T34 here? I said the same thing based on your quote but now my books say the T34 wasn't produced until 1940.AthabascaCree (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Cree; yes I can. Though I am also skeptical. You were right about new information. If you watch the newest 'Tank' series on the History Channel, there are new programs using new research from the former Soviet Union by the guys at Bovington and Sandhurst. Both the program "T34" and the special on Klimenti Voroshilov, hero of the Soviet Union report Russian claims that the T34 and Kv1s were in fact produced sooner and in larger numbers than Western historians have thought. That the first T34 factories were in Siberia for instance, long before 'Tankograd' in Siberia. They even interview with translators, Russian veterans. There is so much new being learnt not only from the fall of the Soviet Union, but the release of Secret files and records obviously. I can tell you when I first started reading that Slavinsky book I was sure disturbed. It had alot of evidence contrary to what I always believed.

Apparently the Oxford was convinced about the T34 stories too. "The Oxford Companion to World War II": Japanese-Soviet Campaigns Page 636.

""...Reinforced with artillery the Kwantung Army tried again on 23 July(1939), but were again checked. However Stalin, concerned that the Japanese were aiming to cross into Soviet territoriy and cut the Trans-Siberian railway--the only means of transporting troops to and from the Far East--sent General Zhukov to re-ogranize Soviet forces into the newly formed First Army Group and launch a counter-offiensive. Zhukov arrived in early June and began gathering a powerful force (35 infantry battalions, 20 cavalry squadrons, 500 aircraft, and 500 of the new and powerful T34 tanks) which outnumbered anything the Kwantung Army could put into the field."

:::Despite the Soviet veteran interviews and new Russian claims, I too still have my doubts on this claim. But there it is, I do have that book source, so if you still think its BS, I suggest you write the Oxford Encyclopedia ww2 historians they use I guess.

I'm still skeptical, but here are more. http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/03/msg00101.html

http://worldwar2database.com/html/nomonhan.htm

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/nomonhan.aspx

Befuddler (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: Japan and the Soviet Union did engage each other in 1945(August Storm).

True. But then you are excusing everything our enemies did, and deny all the principals we claimed we were fighting the war for by lauding the unprovoked international aggression and betrayal of signed treaties/pacts/agreements. Because the only way your statement came true was by the USSR violating the Japanese-Soviet Non-Aggression/Neutrality/Friendship pact not due to expire until April 1946. Congratulations, you just made my point for me. Either we acknowledge there were 2 separate wars, 2 separate sets of ‘Grand Alliances’, or you demean and dishonor all the principal we claim we fought the wars for.

You Wrote: If you are basing your arguement on the fact that Japan did not attack the Soviet Union then look at the case of Brazil, Brazil declared war on Germany and Italy in August 1942, receiving lend lease and economic aid from the US, it allowed the use of it's airbases to hunt U-boats and even sent an expeditionary force to Italy (FEB), however Brazil did not declare war on Japan until 6/6/1945([1]/ See Brazil) almost after a month after the German surrender. From your reasoning that means that Brazil was not part of the Allies! The Poland, Norway and Czechoslovakia(whose goverments were in exile) contributed nothing against the war against Imperial Japan yet they are still considered part of the Allies.

Again, not true.What I am saying was that the war in Europe and the war in Asia were 2 separate wars. 2 separate groups of alliances. 2 separate military alliances we deliberately, or just simply irresponsibly, confuse by using the same title ‘Allies’ or ‘Grand Alliances’. Once we admit they were 2 separate wars, then it all makes more sense and make us look all the more moral.

You Wrote: From your reasoning that means that Brazil was not part of the Allies! The Poland, Norway and Czechoslovakia(whose goverments were in exile) contributed nothing against the war against Imperial Japan yet they are still considered part of the Allies.

Again, not true. All I am saying is that if we want to portray that period of history accurately, that in the same way we do not include the Finnish Winter War nor the ongoing Chinese Civil War as part of what we call ww2, that we should record there being 2 separate wars: one in the ‘West’(Europe, Mediterranean) and one in the ‘East’(Pacific and East Asia), and therefore 2 separate groups of friends and foes, 2 separate formations of ‘Allies’. Then we also appear more moral historically. All we have to do is refer to our alliance against Germany as the ‘Western Allies’ and that against Japan as the ‘Eastern Allies’; refer to the German-Italian-led European/Mediterranean War as the ‘Axis’ and the Japanese-led war in the East as the GEACPS if you like(Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere) which is how I see it used in Asian history books, just use the initials like we do for NATO or NORAD today.

  • I remind you when using these names, these are not actual signed treaty alliances like NATO, they were only nick-names used by either side. There was never any signed document of alliance between even Britain, France and Poland at the start titled ‘Grand Alliance’ anymore than there was ever any signed document of alliance between Germany, Japan and Italy titled ‘Axis’.

In the European Conflict: September 1939 to June 1941 Grand Alliance = British-led French, Polish, Dutch, Dane, Belgian, Norwegian London governments-in-exile Versus Axis Alliance = German Reich and her agreed vassals and Italy (*Finland, for instance, wanted war only with the USSR to regain her territory we let Stalin take from her by naked force no different that Hitler; while Bulgaria wanted to make sure she was never at war with the USSR.) June 1941-May 1945 Grand Alliance = same as above with the addition of the United States and at the very end the rest of the Latin American nations.

In what the Japanese call the Greater East Asian Conflict: July 1937 to December 1941 KMT or Nationalist China, sometimes allied to sometimes fighting Mao’s CCP, Chinese Communist Party or Reds. Versus Imperial Japan December 1941 to September 1945 Grand Alliance including the United States and the KMT, with the USSR entering in the very end literally. Versus Imperial Japan, Siam(Thailand) and east-asian independence-minded puppet regimes like Emperor Pu Yi’s Manchukuo, Wang Ching Wei’s Nationalist Chinese, Bose India, Sukarno Indonesia and so on.

You see, this is the very danger of mis-using, intentional or not, terms and words that are not actually official historical documents. For example. We use the term ‘Grand Alliance’ or ‘Allies’ to describe an activated military alliance in WW1 that included Japan and Italy, and again use the term ‘Allies’ to describe on group in WW2 that does NOT include Japan and Italy. Not a big deal, except of course you can tell the ‘anti-Japanese’ wikipedia sites here because they do not mention Japan as a member of the ‘Allies’ despite it being and undisputed historical fact by English and Japanese historians. But when, in our propaganda, we tried to make ourselves look more moral than we were and try to imply America was standing up to the Nazis all the time, and try to make the world out to be black and white, we tried to link the 2 separate wars into 1, just like we try to link Saddam Hussein and Iraq to 9/11 today, we over-generalized into using 2 mis-leading nick-names, ‘Axis’ and ‘Allies’.


[edit] It’s not really an impossible distinction for us to grasp, seriously, we are bright enough in America.

Today we use the term ‘coalition’ to describe 2 different groups of allied nations in 2 different wars at the exact same time. There is the Iraq-war ‘coalition’ and the ‘Afghan-war ‘coalition’. While some nations are included in both ‘coalitions’, most are not. Most of the NATO members who agree to the term’coalition’ in Afghanistan, like Canada, Germany, Holland etc, are NOT members of the ‘coalition’ in Iraq. So even today, we use the same title of an alliance to refer to 2 different wars at the very same time, in this case, right next to eachother even. But if you tell a Canadian, German or Hollander etc that they are members of the same ‘coalition’ at war in Iraq, they will take great offense at your ignorance.

The very same applies to the 2 different ‘allies’ in what we(but not everyone), call WW2 or the Second World War. Just because Stalin agreed to join the ‘other’ ‘Allies’ in the Far East after the war in Europe was finished, does NOT mean he was always a member of those ‘Allies’.

That is no more true than saying that the USA was a member of the ‘Allies’ since 1939.

That’s why post-ww2, we gave definate agreed-upon names and titles to our future alliances. We had NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and we had what we called the Warsaw Pact. We do not confuse NATO with NORAD, the American-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command.

Although admittedly we are obviously back at it again with our propagandists and spin-doctors counting on we humans being too simple-minded and lazy to realize that the NATO-led war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Alquaeda in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, is still trying to be referred to as the same alliance mission as the American and British(almost exclusively)-led ‘coalition’ in Iraq to try to cover-up another historical lie and morale embarassment just because they convince the media and historians to keep repeating it enough that it becomes entrenched in history books even if it isn’t true. Like my books that still say Colombus was the first European to discover the Americas, when in fact it was the Vikings.

Now do you see how dangerous it is when describing diplomatic and military terms, names, titles and even nick-names incorrectly/inaccurately? I can’t help but wonder if my student is right, and the reason western historian go along with inaccurately using the dangerously over-generalised terms ‘Axis’ and ‘Allies’ is the same reason that today these same historians feel they have to refer to both admittedly separate missions in Afghanistan and Iraq by the same term ‘coalition’….just to cover up that we made serious morale mistakes. In ww2, it was to hide the fact that America was not standing up to Nazism and all from the start; and today, that we got totally bamboozled into redirecting our efforts away from the real culprits behind 9/11.

Let’s stop being historical hypocrites and start re-earning the world’s trust!

[edit] A Global War

First of all - I'M NOT AN AMERICAN

Alliance- Regardless if it was defensive or offensive. The point is that it was an alliance – there was co-operation, it might not have been on the scale as the allies nevertheless, (again) U-boats operated from Japanese occupied Penang in Malay against shipping in the Indian Ocean and U-862 operated in the Pacific off Australia and sank an American steamer [2], and circumnavigated Australia. A Secondary base was established at Kobe, Japan, and small repair bases at Singapore, Jakarta and Surabaya.[3] U-boats in the Far East

Germany and Japan both traded raw materials and exchanged technology (German-Japanese Technical Cooperation by raiders/merchant ships and later submarines(Yanagi Missions)(German Type X submarine). The Ki-61 had a German engine, J8M was a Japanese copy of the Me-163 and Ki-201 of the Me-262, the Germans also sold the Japanese a Tiger tank for 600,000. The Me-109 was also tested by the Japanese.Me-109 tested in Japan

In 1945 U-234 sailed for Japan with two Japanese officers - carrying 560kg of Uranium Oxide, two Me 262 aircraft and 10 jet engines. After the armistice the U-234 surrendered to the Americans with the Japanese onboard committing suicide. U-219 and U-195 reached Japanese occupied Indonesia in December 1944, together carrying 12 dismantled V-2 Rockets. The Japanese I-30, I-29 and I-8 arrived in German occupied Europe in 1942 ,1943 and 1944 respectively where the officers and crews were greeted with enthusiasm by the Germans including Admiral Doenitz.Youtube - Japanese submarine I-8 visits Europe.

Italian Submarines also operated in the Indian Ocean/Pacific, Commandante Cappellini’’ and Luigi Torelli both served with Italian crews, then after the Italian surrender, they were transferred to the Germans in the Pacific as UIT-24 and UIT-25, then after the German surrender they were taken over by the Japanese navy as the I-503 and I-504. ‘’ These two submarines were the only two submarines which flew all three flags of the Axis powers of the Second World War.’’ [4] An Italian Aircraft flew from Europe to Japanese Manchuria in 1942[5].

Germany Italy and Japan also signed a Pact barring a separate peace with the United States or Great Britian;[6] December 11, 1941 – the same day that Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.[7]

If it was not an alliance why did Germany share their most secret weapons and projects with the Japanese. Why did German and Italian Submarines operate in the Pacific and Indian Oceans from Japanese bases, why did Japan send submarines to Europe and why did the Japanese army attaché visit Leningrad during 1943. Youtube – Japanese Visit Leningrad.

[edit] Historical Documents

Quote - "There was never any signed document of alliance between even Britain, France and Poland at the start titled ‘Grand Alliance’ anymore than there was ever any signed document of alliance between Germany, Japan and Italy titled ‘Axis’."
"Now do you see how dangerous it is when describing diplomatic and military terms, names, titles and even nick-names incorrectly/inaccurately?"

However, there were official documents that contained the term Allies and Axis and they are accurate. They were not nick names.

Inter-Allied Council Statement on the Principles of the Atlantic Charter : September 24, 1941

Washington Conference Draft
The Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Belgium, China, Czecho-Slovakia, Greece, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Yugo-Slavia,

Having subscribed to a common programme of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Great Britain dated August 14th, 1941 and known as the Atlantic Charter,....

1.Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources against the Axis forces of conquest and to continue such employment until these forces have been finally defeated

2.Each Government pledges itself to the other Governments associated in this Declaration to effect the full coordination of its military effort and the use of its resources against the common enemies;

3.Each Government pledges itself to continue war against, and not to make a separate peace with the common enemies or any of them.

Italy
Armistice with Italy; September 3, 1943
Armistice with Italy Amendment of Instrument of Surrender; November 9, 1943

Romania
The Armistice Agreement with Rumania; September 12, 1944
Paris Peace Treaty

Bulgaria
The Armistice Agreement with Bulgaria; October 28, 1944
Paris Peace Treaty

Hungary
Allied Control Commission Armistice Agreement with Hungary; January 20, 1945
The functions of the Allied Control Commission in Hungary shall consist of the regulation and control, for the period up to the conclusion of peace, over the exact fulfillment of the armistice terms set forth in the agreement concluded on January 20, 1945, between the governments of the Soviet Union, United Kingdom and the United States of America on the one hand and the Provisional Government of Hungary on the other. The Allied Control Commission shall be headed by a Chairman who shall be the representative of the Soviet armed forces. Attached to him there shall be: a vice-chairman of the Commission; a political adviser; two assistants to the Chairman; a chief of staff of the Commission.

Austria
Austria

German Surrender and Occupation
Agreement Between the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic on Certain Additional Requirements to be Imposed on Germany; September 20, 1945
Declaration Regarding the Defeat of Germany and the Assumption of Supreme Authority by Allied Powers; June 5, 1945

Japanese Surrender
We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers. We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under the Japanese control wherever situated....
-Japanese surrender documents

Organisations
Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force - SHAEF
Allied Commission
Allied Council for Japan

"You see, this is the very danger of mis-using, intentional or not, terms and words that are not actually official historical documents."

YOU WERE SAYING?

If you read what I wrote, I said there was no officially signed 'Grand Alliance' at the start of the war. I concede that by the end of the war we did officially sign ourselves into membership of a pact called the 'Allies'. I admit I was wrong in that respect. But if you read what I wrote, I said at the start of the war. The Atlantic Charter, where the term 'Inter-Allied Council' was first used rather than Anglo-Polish or Franco-Polish alliance, was AFTER the start of the war. Well into the war in fact.


HOWEVER, I still stand by my assertion that Japan was not part of any 'Axis Pact'. Example.
In the old 1988 Oxford Dictionary, under the definition of the term 'the Axis', ..."the alliance between Germany and Italy(and later Japan) in The Second World War"
But then the latest revised edition changed the defintion to "the alliance between Germany and Italy in the Second World War" deliberately leaving out Japan.

When I asked a representative of Oxford at a teacher's conference why the change, they said that upon further historical review, they found there was no objective documentary evidence that Japan accepted the renaming of the 'Tripartite Pact' as the term 'Axis', nor any that Japan signed any such named pact, treaty or alliance; therefore, especially given how offensive the term is to them to this day(she literally pointed out the term 'Axis' is linked in most minds with Jewish concentration camps and unprovoked aggression on Russia), that Oxford decided to 'correct' the definition and historical record.

So while I will concede that by the end of the war we did officially document ourselves as the 'Allies', there is no such evidence for the 'Axis', especially in relation to Japan, even in the unconditional surrender documentation.

Because you use only our(allied) documentation to prove use of the term 'axis' and none of the Japanese leaders officially signing any documentation admitting to the use of the term to describe the Tripartite Pact or any other relationship with Germany and Italy, you seem to only prove the assertion that you wrote this article on the Tripartite Pact from an Allied/american biased perspective.

You seem to deliberately tell only half the story, which is propaganda, not history.
You cannot prove that Japan considered itself part of any 'Axis Pact', yet, unlike Oxford, you refuse to remove that inference and use of a one-sided propagandic term.
You leave out that fact that, as far as the Japanese and even Soviets were concerned(as proven by that Russian history book quoted), Japanese membership of the Tripartite Pact was intended at least as much to improving relations with if not outright allying with the USSR, as much as to prevent America from joining either war(which you do mention, and which you ignore that it says 'either' as in 2 different wars).
You leave out the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact completetly. The only time you mention it is when you admit that the Soviet Union still considered itself bound to it in your own quote where the Soviet Ambassador announces Soviet intention NOT to RENEW the pact in April 1945, as was part of the terms to do so 1 year before it's expiration;(so obviously felt the pact still being honoured and in force which is contrary to the claim that the USSR signed onto an alliance of being at war with Japan at the same time) then when you quote where the Soviet Union denounced the pact so that it could illegally declare war on Japan by violating the neutrality pact not due to expire till April 1946.(as even admitted in Russian history book).
The fact that you conveniently leave out all those major facts let alone claim a propagandic term as an official pact, as the first critics posted, that these articles on Tripartite Pact and Axis Pact do come across with definate allied/american bias.
Definately not objective full accounts. Befuddler (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union and Japan

Quotes "But then you are excusing everything our enemies did, and deny all the principals we claimed we were fighting the war for by lauding the unprovoked international aggression and betrayal of signed treaties/pacts/agreements. Because the only way your statement came true was by the USSR violating the Japanese-Soviet Non-Aggression/Neutrality/Friendship pact not due to expire until April 1946"
...The very same applies to the 2 different ‘allies’ in what we(but not everyone), call WW2 or the Second World War. Just because Stalin agreed to join the ‘other’ ‘Allies’ in the Far East after the war in Europe was finished, does NOT mean he was always a member of those ‘Allies’.

Agreed. Alot of countries didn't declare war on anyone till nearly the very end. Then look at Italy and Finland who ended up declaring war on their former allies during the same war. By the way, please sign your comments so I know who is speaking.AthabascaCree (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Allied Conferences
During the the second Moscow conference and the Tehran Conference conducted in late 1943, and in the latter conference - the Soviet Union agreed to commit Soviet forces against Japan after the defeat of Germany.(Tehran Conference) A four nation declaration was also issued during second Moscow conference in which -

The governments of the United States of America, United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China;

United in their determination, in accordance with the declaration by the United Nations of January, 1942, and subsequent declarations, to continue hostilities against those Axis powers with which they respectively are at war until such powers have laid down their arms on the basis of unconditional surrender;.....
1. That their united action, pledged for the prosecution of the war against their respective enemies, will be continued for the organization and maintenance of peace and security.
2. That those of them at war with a common enemy will act together in all matters relating to the surrender and disarmament of that enemy....
-Moscow conference 1943

Yet at the very same time, these people have proven with sourced quotes, (I've checked myself), that the Soviets were promising the Japanese the opposite. All we do, by claiming the Soviets were justified in violating yet another pact they signed is tell the world 'do as we say, not as we do' or 'the law only applies to some, not all'. You are saying that we weren't sincere about the terms of the Atlantic Charter, Washington Charter or United Nations as we allowed(against our will in Eastern Europe and Turkey) but in Japan's case, actually bribed Stalin to violate those same International Laws.

This is exactly why, to this day, Japan and Russia have not ratified the peace treaty ending what we call ww2 and why communist(with Taiwan's support)China continue to have border disputes with Russia.AthabascaCree (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The final Moscow Conference, between Churchill and Stalin also involved the discussion on the details for the Soviet Union's entry in the war against Japan. The Yalta conference subsequent Yalta Protocol/declaration in february, 1945 further stated that -
The leaders of the three great powers - the Soviet Union, the United States of America and Great Britain - have agreed that in two or three months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated, the Soviet Union shall enter into war against Japan on the side of the Allies....-Yalta declaration(see AGREEMENT REGARDING JAPAN).

Soviet denunciation of Neutrality pact, 5th April[8]
...-The neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan was concluded on April 13, 1941, that is, before the attack of Germany on the USSR and before the outbreak of war between Japan on the one hand and England and the United States on the other. Since that time the situation has been basically altered. Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR. Furthermore Japan is waging a war with the USA and England, which are allies of the Soviet Union.

In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense, and the prolongation of that pact has become impossible.

On the strength of the above and in accordance with Article Three of the above mentioned pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the lapse of the five year period of operation of the pact, the Soviet Government hereby makes know to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941......

Potsdam and Russian declaration of war
The Potsdam conference [9] also resulted in a proclamation against Japan. The Russian delcaration of war on the 8th of August stated that -

After the defeat and capitulation of Hitlerite Germany, Japan remained the only great power which still stands for the continuation of the war.

The demand of the three powers, the United States, Great Britain and China, of July 26 for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces was rejected by Japan. Thus the proposal made by the Japanese Government to the Soviet Union for mediation in the Far East has lost all foundation.

Taking into account the refusal of Japan to capitulate, the Allies approached the Soviet Government with a proposal to join the war against Japanese aggression and thus shorten the duration of the war, reduce the number of casualties and contribute toward the most speedy restoration of peace.

True to its obligation as an Ally, the Soviet Government has accepted the proposal of the Allies, and has joined in the declaration of the Allied powers of July 26.........[10]

Conclusion The Soviets signed the United Nations pact on January 1, 1942 as a result were considered part of the allies. Both the Soviet Union and Japan maintained peace, in order not to fight a two front war and focus their attentions elsewhere - Russian in Europe against Germany and Japan in the Pacific against the United States. Soviet Union denounced the pact and it's agreements with the Western allies took precedence.

Wrong. Precedence goes to the agreement signed first, not the most convenient at the time. That's exactly the faulty set of ethics that Stalin would use to justify betraying everyone else including us.AthabascaCree (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoted - "Zhukov used the new T34s against the Japanese in 1939, the fact that Guderian was totally surprised by them 2 years later shows how 'united' Japan was with Germany. "Zhukov arrived in early June and began gathering a powerful force (35 battalions, 20 cavalry squadrons, 500 aircraft, and 500 of the new and powerful T34 tanks)."

That’s Inaccurate and Impossible the T-34 did not series production until September 1940, it was only in it’s prototype form in 1939 – at the time of Nomonhan/Kalhin Gol.[11][12] (see also T-34) It was BT-5 cruiser tanks and T-26s’ which were present in the skirmish against Japan.

I would agree. According to my books by Chamberlain/Ellis and Macksey claimed the T34s didn't start production till, according to one, beginning of 1940 and the other June 1940. That being said, I asked the claimant of the quote and he did provide a source I did corroborate in the book he sourced. Given that between the fall of the Soviet Union and the ongoing release of secret documents in all countries, and that we especially know very little about Russia at the time(they were very secretive even against us), I suppose it is possible.AthabascaCree (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States and Britain

Quote - "Not only were the British and Japanese still at peace and trading with each other, but the British were even stepping up efforts to try to convince Japan to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance 1902 that helped Japan defeat Russian in 1905 and helped Britain defeat Germany in ww1. Remember, until Churchill learnt from Ultra(British reading of German codes) that Hitler was going to betray his alliance with Stalin, he was worried he might have to war with the other half of the Nazi-Soviet alliance too"

No, that’s not accurate - what Churchill wanted was for the United States to enter the War, Britain was being kept alive by material from America,

On September 2, 1940 Britain and the US signed the Destroyers for Bases Agreement and the following year concluded the lend lease agreement, Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article." – American weapons and war material were being shipped to Great Britain. Churchill and Roosevelt also agreed on the terms of the Atlantic Charter on 14 August, 1942.

The British needed American Industrial strength to defeat Germany Churchill new this. Why would they endanger their future alliance by seeking terms with Japan, you also have to recognize of course that Churchill’s mother was an American. There might have been certain British diplomats that sought an agreement with Japan however the British as a nation never contemplated such action.

Trading with each other
What’s your point, German and the Soviet Union were trading with each other right up till Operation Barbarossa, this was done to keep the element of surprise(by the Germans) even though Stalin was informed by ULTRA.

Quotes "...then the pre-American ‘Allies’ would have been at war with Japan as of April 1940 when the Tripartite Pact was signed. THEY WERE NOT’ That is no more true than saying that the USA was a member of the ‘Allies’ since 1939."..."That is no more true than saying that the USA was a member of the ‘Allies’ since 1939."

Once Japan went to war in 1941 – Britain and the Commonwealth, the United States, and a number of the Allied nations were at war with Japan. The United States, did however take measures even before it’s entry that were considered belligerent, Cash and Carry – which was designed to help Britain and France 1939, Destroyers for bases(mentioned above), the Lend lease argeement(mentioned above), after Germany invaded the Soviet Union the United States agreed to give supplies to the Soviets[13].

Starting in mid-April [1941] US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic, reporting their observations to the British. At the same time, British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May 12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired in the USA, contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields.

On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military operations. On July 10 Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox announced that the US Navy was under orders to fire against German warships. Five days later, a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a British convoy. Also in 1941 a large naval expansion program was approved[14]

On September 11 [1941], USN had been given the order to fire against all Axis ships. In September, US patrols attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On October 17 the US destroyer Kearny attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on November 6, US naval forces seized the German ship Odenwald and escorted her to an American port, and imprisoned its crew. The USS Reuben James was sunk by a U-boat three months before America's entry into World War II.

America also took semi-belligerent action against Japan in September 1940; at the time of the signing of the Tripartite pact when Japan established a pressence in French Indochina - it embargoed scrap metal to Japan. In July 1941, Japan occupied the southern half of French Indochina which resulted in the freezing of Japanese assests in America and the embargoing of oil.

Quote "United Against Us"
Germany, Italy and Japan WERE fighting Britain and the United States together from 1941 even though Italy left, the RSI continued in Nothern Italy. Germany in the Atlantic with u-boats and later Western Europe, Germany and Italy in North Africa later Italy itself and Japan in South East Asia and in the Pacific and Philipines.

Quote "All we have to do is refer to our alliance against Germany as the ‘Western Allies"

The term Western Allies was/is already used to describe the United States, Britain/ it’s Commonwealth and exiled forces from Occupied Europe.

Quote ..."just to cover up that we made serious morale mistakes. In ww2, it was to hide the fact that America was not standing up to Nazism and all from the start;"

As mentioned above, America did take belligerent steps before it entered the war, FDR(and also many interventionists) was against Nazism and Japanese expansionism- however America was divided there were isolationists that did not to get involved in a war regardless.

[edit] Other Allies and Axis

Finland
Quote Finland, for instance, wanted war only with the USSR to regain her territory we let Stalin take from her by naked force no different that Hitler;

True. Finland wished to regain Karelia and other territory which it lost from the Winter War, German troops were based Finland, Germany and Italy supplied Finland with arms such as aircraft (the Me 109, G.50, captured Hawk 75s( from the French), Tanks and Artillery etc. However, what’s your point?, look at Italy in World War I - it joined the allies mostly in order to gain Trento, Istria and other territories in Dalmatia (see London Pact) Italy was fomerly part of the Triple Alliance which become it’s enemies. France also had a desire to regain Alsace and Lorraine.

Bulgaria

Quote: "while Bulgaria wanted to make sure she was never at war with the USSR.)"

Although Bulgaria did not declare war on the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union did declare war on Bulgaria(on September 5) and invaded the country after sending an ultimatum for the removal of all German troops in the country. Bulgaria was at war with Germany, on September 9, the government was over thrown and a armistance agreed to by the Soviet Union. The armistice was signed with the allies on 28/9/44[15]. So technically even though Bulgaria did not want war against the Soviet Union, the two countries were at war if for a short time(4 days).

During the Tehran conference the Soviet planned to declare war on Bulgaria if Turkey entered the war, it did in 1945 after Bulgaria changed sides however.

(3)...Took note of Marshal Stalin's statement that if Turkey found herself at war with Germany, and as a result Bulgaria declared war on Turkey or attacked her, the Soviet would immediately be at war with Bulgaria. The Conference further took note that this fact could be explicitly stated in the forthcoming negotiations to bring Turkey into the war:[16]

Subhas Chandra Bose
Subhas Chandra Bose escaped FIRST to Germany from India by way of the abwehr, he set up the Indian Tiger Legion in Germany. In 1942 after Japan entered the war he was transferred to Japan via the U-180 and I-29, where he established the Indian National Army in Asia, if Japan and Germany were not allied how could this exchange have occurred?.

China
Although Japan had invaded China in July 1937 and had Occupied Manchuria since 1931. China did not declare war against Japan, Germany and Italy until December 9 1941, two days after Pearl harbour. China did not declare WAR against Japan until 1941 even though Japanese forces were involved in battles with the Chinese. Why did China declare on Germany and Italy; China didn’t contribute anything against Germany and Italy yet it was in a state of war with the two countries from 1941? - Because they were allied with Japan. Chinese declaration of war
Since the conclusion of the Tripartite Pact of September 1940, Germany, Italy, and Japan have unmistakably banded themselves into a block of aggressor states working closely together to carry out their common program of world conquest and domination. To demonstrate their solidarity Germany and Italy successively accorded recognition to Japan's puppet regimes in northeastern China and at Nanking. As a consequence, China severed her diplomatic relations with Germany and Italy last July. Now the Axis powers have extended the theater of their aggressive activities and thrown the whole Pacific region into turmoil, making themselves the enemies of international justice and world civilization. This state of affairs can no longer be tolerated by the Chinese Government and people. The Chinese Government hereby declares that as from midnight, December 9, 1941, a state of war exists between China and Germany and between China and Italy. The Chinese Government further declares that all treaties, conventions, agreements, and contracts regarding relations between China and Germany and between China and Italy are and remain null and void.

Others
Examples
Mexico against Axis - Contributed Escuadrón 201, Pacific
Argentina against Axis - Contributed Nothing - in terms of personnel.

[edit] Rebuttal

Quote "We use the term ‘Grand Alliance’ or ‘Allies’ to describe an activated military alliance in WW1 that included Japan and Italy, and again use the term ‘Allies’ to describe on group in WW2 that does NOT include Japan and Italy. Not a big deal, except of course you can tell the ‘anti-Japanese’ wikipedia sites here because they do not mention Japan as a member of the ‘Allies’ despite it being and undisputed historical fact by English and Japanese historians. how I see it used in Asian history books"

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Italy did change sides in WWII and a co-belligerent state supporting the allies established but the RSI was also set up a state in the North, however Japan was NEVER part of the allies in World War II! As for JAPANESE historians and history books – haven’t you heard about Japanese history textbook controversies .

In WWI, Brazil declared war on Germany in 1917, however there was never any formal alliance signed between Brazil and the Entente, the Triple entente wasn’t even a formal alliance, but an agreement – there was a unity agreement, however that stated that they would not seek a separate peace with Germany. Britain only declared war on Germany after it invaded Belgium and the United States declared war on Germany and Austria Hungary in 1917 yet not on Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. They are called allies because they were ‘’united for a common purpose’’ - the defeat of Germany and or of the Central Powers as a whole, American industrial strength in terms of munitions and armaments also bolstered the British, French and other allies. In WWII, the ALLIES were overall fighting a common enemy at one point in time, and had a common purpose. SOME countries declared war yet did not send personnel to fight but assisted in the the allies in economic or other forms(severing relations etc.).

Allies and Axis
The Allies were those countries that joined together in an association against Germany then later Italy and Japan and those countries/movements associated with them(the Axis). In the beginning – Britain and it’s Commonwealth/Empire, France etc. and later countries that joined them against these powers including the US and Soviet Union and exiled governments. There were tensions between the powers especially Roosevelt - De Gaulle and Churchill/Roosevelt – Stalin, however there was mutual co-operation in the form of lend lease and other agreements. On January 1 1942 all of the belligerents signed a document called the Declaration by United Nations - the parties pledged to uphold the Atlantic Charter, to employ all their resources in the war against the Axis powers, and that none of the signatory nations would seek to negotiate a separate peace with Germany/Japan and the other member of the Axis. Not all of the countries delcared war on all of the members of the Axis immediately or some not at all – eg.Brazil only declaring war on Japan on 6/61945. Some countries like only declared war on Japan because they entered to late in the war like Chile, other countries like the Norway and Poland declared war on Japan yet they did not contribute forces against Japan.

A Global War
"All I am saying is that if we want to portray that period of history accurately, that in the same way we do not include the Finnish Winter War nor the ongoing Chinese Civil War as part of what we call ww2, that we should record there being 2 separate wars: one in the ‘West’(Europe, Mediterranean) and one in the ‘East’(Pacific and East Asia), and therefore 2 separate groups of friends and foes, 2 separate formations of ‘Allies’. Then we also appear more moral historically."

"What I am saying was that the war in Europe and the war in Asia were 2 separate wars. 2 separate groups of alliances. 2 separate military alliances we deliberately, or just simply irresponsibly, confuse by using the same title ‘Allies’ or ‘Grand Alliances’. Once we admit they were 2 separate wars, then it all makes more sense and make us look all the more moral."

"So even today, we use the same title of an alliance to refer to 2 different wars at the very same time, in this case, right next to eachother even. But if you tell a Canadian, German or Hollander etc that they are members of the same ‘coalition’ at war in Iraq, they will take great offense at your ignorance."

"I can’t help but wonder if my student is right, and the reason western historian go along with inaccurately using the dangerously over-generalised terms ‘Axis’ and ‘Allies’ is the same reason that today these same historians feel they have to refer to both admittedly separate missions in Afghanistan and Iraq by the same term ‘coalition’….just to cover up that we made serious morale mistakes. today, that we got totally bamboozled into redirecting our efforts away from the real culprits behind 9/11."

"What I am saying is that they were 2 different wars, (like today’s Afghan and Iraq wars)."

You are the one whos ignorant. YOU keep on comparing World War II with Iraq and Afghanistan, – You’re looking at WWII from a contemporary point of view. World War II and the present conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing in common. There may be similarities such as 9/11 and Pearl Harbour but that’s it. World War II was a global conflict where entire populations were mobilised for war and industry. For 6 years entire regions around the world were engulfed in war. It was one inter-connected conflict with different theatres of war, Europe, North Africa and the Far East with millions of combatants. Iraq and Afghanistan are Police Actions/Low intensity conflicts against relatively small number of combatants,(who don't have tanks, aircraft etc.) I do agree with that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, but the the truth is Japan was PART of the Axis, Allies and Axis are accurate terms and World War II was a GLOBAL CONFLICT.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SFX 1 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calling one ignorant

Befuddler (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, since you felt it necessary to call me or maybe one of my student ignorant, I must assume someone called you that first, and though I don't recall calling anyone here ignorant, I apologize if any of mine did. But I don't even know who you are since you didn't sign your post.

I have no problem with stating that some Japanese ambassadors outright told the Russians they remained 'allied' to Germany and Italy under the Tripartite Pact even after the German invasion of Russia. My problem with this article(and my students), is that it doesn't define what they meant by 'allied' nor give enough attention to the fact that Japan actually honored The Soviet-Japan Neutrality Pact, even when Stalin seemed on his last legs, as well.

And I most definately stick by the statement that the KIND of military alliance is what is too often dis-respected and conveniently ignored and that can be dangerous.

That's the whole reason why we didn't declare war on the Soviet Union when it invaded Poland no less than Germany did. At the time, we told the Poles it was because we specifically used the word 'Germany' in the defense pact and that gave us our excuse not to declare war on the Soviet Union eventhough everyone admits the whole point and intention of the Britain-France-Polish pact was to secure Polish Sovereignty. So to much of the world we seem hypocritical to stand on 'technicalities' when it is to our advantage(ie Poland) and to say they don't matter when not to our advantage(ie Soviet-Japan).

It doesn't matter how many times London or Berlin tried to over-simplify the global situation as 'Axis vs Allies', that still doesn't change the fact that Japan and the USSR did not see the 2 wars as 1 war, 'black and white', 'axis and allies'. Even the United States of America didn't consider them the same war even after Pearl Harbor, that's exactly why the US REFUSED to declare war on Germany and Italy after declaring war on Japan. That's all we're saying.

'Refuse' is appropriate here in the same way Japan 'refused' Germany's calls to declare war on the Soviet Union, the USA 'refused' Britain and others' calls to declare war on the Nazis for years. However embarassing, it is true.

Yet the way this article was written, that's the way it sounds. Yet I tell my students that's the way most of our historical record treats the issue. Do we do so to over-shadow embarassing facts by high-lighting more proud facts in our history? Sure. That's why they say 'history is written by the victors'.

But the kids are right, that is not only hypocritical but dangerous. It's a lesson we should have learnt to prevent a present day mis-representation.

The same way our media, till recently, made it sound like the war against Bin Ladin was the same war against Saddam. But now we're going back to distinguishing between the two.

It only seems to prove how important it is NOT to be inaccurate in terminology in intelligence, the media then historical record. Had we been more accurate in our more recent historical record, today's news head-lines and top-stories would again be about the hunt for Bin Ladin and fight with Alqueda rather than Iraq's Civil War and Iran.

Another analogy. Just because the USA invaded Canada in the War of 1812 doesn't mean British and European historians record America as being against the 'Allies' of Britain, Prussia, Russia and Austria etc.
Many of the same combatants, even more cooperation and trade and outright military cooperation even, yet still treated in European history books as 2 separate wars.

How can we claim that we fought ww2 on the principal of punishing aggression when:
a) we refused to declare war on the USSR for doing no less to Finland, Rumania and the Baltic States let alone Poland
b) encouraged said same USSR to violate the same international law and attack Japan while still bound by a voluntary Neutrality Pact?

It clearly comes across as hypocritical.

I was a little embarassed when my newest immigrant student from main-land China said in his history classes it is pointed out that while we convinced Russia to violate international law and attack neutral Japan, even Hitler couldn't convince Japan to do the same. And after Koreans, no-one has less dis-like of the Japanese than the Chinese, so to hear we're called out as hypocrites by our former allies stings all the more.

The good thing about teaching so many immigrants is asking them what their schools teach for history. The bad thing(besides lack of fluency in English) is when even I admit we never admit to our own propaganda and hypocrisy.

These articles, especially when dealing with Japan, seem to focus more on the Tripartite Pact(Axis if you will) as being the other half of the black and white, clear-cut, them and us, alliance against the Allies. Rather than the fact that Japan actually joined it to IMPROVE not HARM relations with the Soviet Union, rather than the fact that Japan intended it's membership from the start to be something to give-up to please and make peace with the Americans. But that's not how it comes across.

Another casualty of this over-simplification is we have apparently forgotten the whole reason the war started in the first place, to protect Polish sovereignty. That seems only to be further proof that how you define terms like 'allies' is actually very important.

For instance, I've never met a Pole who felt 'we, the allies' won WW2, nor that Japan was more of an enemy than the USSR was. So I can see why much of the non-English world doesn't see the topic so 'black and white' as this article implies.

Oh, and for the argument that by licensing the Me109 engine to the Japanese was proof of a Japanese-German military alliance?
the license was actually bought in April 1940, half a year BEFORE the Tripartite Pact was negotiated and signed. And the DB 601A engine licensed to Japan was already considered out-dated even by that time. In fact, Russia received 6 of the He100(arguably superior to the Me109) while Japan received 3. Japan also licensed the great C47 from the USA while at war with China, they called it the L2D3. But that didn't make the USA militarily allied to Japan either.

It's actually a good thing Japan and Germany didn't share their 'best stuff' with eachother as you claim. If Germany had Japanese long-range fighters we might have lost the Battle for Britain. If German Uboats were as big, powerful and long-ranged as the Japanese submarines, or if the Germans had the infamous Japanese Type 93 Long-lance torpedo(or Italians for that matter), we could have lost the Battle of the Atlantic. That's just from the Japanese side, but if Britain was starved out of the war that would have been it right there.

If the Japanese had licensed even the German 75mm at guns let alone the infamous 88s, Panthers, Tigers even just PzIVs, let alone Panzerfausts or panzershreks, infamous snorkel Type21 Uboat technology, radars, sonars etc, it would have been a very different war.

Even your mention of the J8m Shusui copy of the Me163 never saw action because Hitler refused to release it's license till it was too late. And to be fair to the Japanese, the Kikka was in fact an all-Japanese design, but yet again, if Hitler wanted to, he could have helped the Japanese produce jet or other aircraft Germany had 3 years prior to Japan's surrender.

No, if Japan and Germany were really sincerely sharing technology and equipment both sides would've wielded very different equipment from eachother's drawing boards.

Hitler wasn't going to just give Japan his 'best stuff', if they wanted it, they had to attack the Soviet Union. He had already sacrificed too much foolishly declaring war on America when FDR didn't have the support to declare war on him even after Pearl Harbor. Hitler only authorized the release of an outdated taste of what Japan could enjoy if they would only join the Axis in attacking Russia. It was only as he saw the end coming that he agreed to authorize the release of his best stuff if only in revenge.

Again, our concern is the mis-leading nature of the way these articles focus on some facts and hide even outright omit other facts in their shadow. It's not just that the Japanese didn't cooperate with the Germans as well as we did, it is literally that both the Soviet Union and the Japanese, just like the United States of America before Hitler declared war on it, considered the 2 wars to be separate actions, distinctly separate wars. But that's not how these articles make it sound.

We come across as so hypocritical to say "we declared war based upon defending Polish Sovereignty", when in fact we gave it up and more.

We come across as so hypocritical to say "we fought against violation of international law and aggression" when in fact from December 1941 on, we were encouraging the Soviet Union to do exactly the same thing against Japan. We actually rewarded the Soviet Union for invading our original ally by letting them take away twice as much of Poland as it got from Germany and hand over Poland to a Stalin rather than a Hitler.
So what did we declare war on Germany for again?
Another point totally fogged over in these articles too.

I'm glad we beat Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese militarists. However, whenever I teach in another country or ask immigrant students who wanted to come here, why the world dis-trusts even hates us, these type of articles and arrogant 'only others tell propaganda' are a common theme. And that's from those who want to become us no less.

Believe me, as a teacher it is alot easier to just say "The Second World War was where we the 'allies' defeated the 'axis' aggressors'." Makes our job alot easier, simple, black and white, easy for the kids to remember on a test. However that over-simplicity, 'black and white', 'them and us' start to finish, is inaccurate and hypocritical.

You know how your kids got to an age when they accused you as a parent of always 'do as I say, not as I do?', well, teaching Social Studies and History has gotten that way too. All the more so since Iraq in fact.

I don't see what the problem is with wanting the article to more clearly point out that even the United States of America saw the 2 wars as separate wars and that's why even after declaring war on Japan, the USA refused to declare war on Germany and Italy and their Axis. Even after Hitler thankfully stupidly declared war on the US in vain hopes Japan would return the favor vs Russia, both the USSR and Japan continued to view them as 2 separate conflicts. That implying the war was simply 'axis vs allies' start to finish is over-simplistic and historically inaccurate. That's not being ignorant nor unpatriotic, it's being accurate I think.

Instead, the 'axis vs allies' highlight of these articles comes across as if there were 2 distinct, unwavering, determined opposing camps start to finish.

The last author just before this calling me or someone ignorant, does make some very good points though,... such as the German and Italian submarines re-supplying at Japanese naval-bases in the Indian Ocean. But to be more accurate, they did so at Portuguese Timor and other ports as well and the Japanese made it a point to make sure that no German/Italian warships or submarines acted against Russian shipping in the Pacific. Another example of telling only half the story.

Neither the USSR nor Japan wanted the other leasing bases to their enemies. The USSR needed Japan to let American-Canadian-lend-lease and trade through to Siberia to fight Germany and Japan needed the USSR to promise not to lease the Anglo-Americans bases in range of Japan. That's how important hearing "the rest of the story" is, and why we criticise these articles for focusing too much on one half of the story.Befuddler (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 12:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed my mind, agree with critics

I used to go along with this ‘Axis=Germany, Japan, Italy and them’ and ‘Allies=Britain, France, Poland, USA and all’. But then when I read this guys’ article and his responses to criticism, I got to rethinking things especially when reading his own links of all things.

I gotta agree with you all, this article does come across as a biased representation of that history.

Assuming that the links he uses record the word for word verbatum agreements, then I see a couple of problems right off.

First, he’s using the Atlantic Charter, which refers to the Atlantic Conference, as not only the proof of our official use of terms related to the word ‘Allied’(as in 'Inter-Allied Council' here, I know, that's an adjective or verb not a noun) but as it’s founding principles as well. And that’s where this guy actually lost me to the critics.

Read them all yourself, but briefly the Atlantic Conference was an agreement in principle by the Brits and Yanks to defend the status quo and defend everyone’s pre-war sovereignties.

Then when you critics point out we didn't stand by those principles, this author actually demeans you all saying 'those details and definitions don't matter'.

The Atlantic Charter was the official recognition by Britain and her exiled-allies to agree to those principles as the foundation of their alliance. The kicker here is that 6 months before Pearl Harbour, while promising the Americans at home he would keep them out of all foreign wars, Roosevelt sounds off against Germany like that idiot in Tehran sounds off against Israel today. We sure as hell would call this provocational today.

1. The Atlantic Conference of August 14th 1941, where Roosevelt admittedly commits in writing to the desired destruction of the Nazis.

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

But to me, that’s nothing compared to the rest of this. Listen up.

But here is where the author wants to have his cake and eat it too. In the Atlantic Charter, while it implies moral but not official support by the Americans, it does say that the USSR is declared to be a member. What a joke.

The article’s author wants us to believe in the ideals of the ‘Atlantic Charter’ as the foundation of our ‘Allies’ alliance while including membership of the Soviet Union at the same time! Incredible!

The author wants us to believe the Soviet Union considered itself bound by the terms of the Atlantic Charter regarding respect for sovereignty of all nations no matter how small and then this same author dismisses historical fact that even before Germany invaded it, it violated new fewer than 5 of its own neutrality/non-aggression pacts signed with neighbours. Then he dismisses what happened in the end resulting in the Cold War and loss of sovereignty and freedom of self-determination of hundreds of millions of people.

He claims he isn’t American, well he sure isn’t a patriot from Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Rumania, Japan even Turkey(who was neutral from Pete’s sake). Not to mention the ‘iron curtain’ and Warsaw Pact. Hell, I just reached the page in this book teach got us reading that says Roosevelt would suppport whoever was losing between Stalin and Hitler and Roosevelt himself didn’t believe in pacts.

Boris Slavinsky. Page 15 “Roosevelt replied by telling the Soviet ambassador on 29 June 1937 ‘I have no faith in pacts. The main guarantee is a strong Navy…let’s see if the Japanese can win a maritime competition.’ The more I’m trying to prove to myself the author of this article is right the more I’m finding stuff to agree with the critics. Damn.

His obvious indifference to the loss of sovereignty of millions against the claims of the ideals of our ‘Alliance’ does imply a definate bias, I agree.

Like Japan. He quotes where Japan agrees to accept the USSR as part of the ‘Allies’ as referred to in the Potsdam Declaration, yet leaves out why, in reality, to this day, even I know Japan and Russia have never ratified the peace treaty ending ww2.

I quote the Russian historian Boris Slavinsky in regards his own research that would seem to support the criticism of this article’s selective slant on history.

When Roosevelt promised Stalin the return of Russian territory lost to Japan by war they again let him get away with violating what they claimed were the basic foundations of the our ‘Allies vs Axis’ conflict in the first place.

“In particular, they not only acquiesced in his recovering everything that had been lost in 1904-5, but light-heartedly accepted his claim on the entire Kurile Island chain which, unlike Korea, Formosa or Southern Sakhalin, Japan had not acquired by war. The three islands and a group of islets closest to Hokkaido had never been Russian, the rest had been recognised as Russian only from 1855-1875. Russia then ceded them to Japan in exchange for Japan’s relinquishing its claim to Sakhalin. Inclusion of the South Kuriles among Stalin’s gains added to his violation of the Neutrality pact and detention of Japanese prisoners of war for anything up to 10 years after the end of the war and created in Japan a sense of victimisation which has lasted to this day. Fifty-eight years after the war’s end, there is still no formal peace treaty between Japan and Russia.”

So damn right I agree with even that Rusky historian that this slant on history is totally wrong and that word hypocritical. I agree, we can’t go and say our Alliance was based upon where this author starts our use of the term ‘Allied or Allied Council’ when we outright encourage the violation of those same principles.

And another thing. I read all those links the author put up there and while I do see the term ‘Allied’ quoted to mean either British/American OR in some cases USSR only instead(clearly a violation of the Atlantic Charter), but I notice that they do not, in fact, use the term ‘Axis’ in those surrender documents.

I always agreed with the terms ‘Axis and Allies’ until I actually read up on this more, and now, especially with this author’s laissez-fair(however you spell that) attitude towards turning our backs on the very principles our alliance claimed it was founded upon only make me see this article all the more biased the way it’s written, especially about Japan, but to be fair, to Finland(who Russia attacked BEFORE allied to Germany), let alone condoning Russian’s violation of no fewer than 5 non-aggression and neutrality pacts, or his apathetic attitude to the Poles especially.

You are right, this representation of history made even me forget why the ‘Allies’ went to war with Germany in the first place and this author’s rebuttal to those comments on international sovereignty and rule of law only makes me change my mind more towards the teach here.

You are either committed to the principles of sovereignty and self-determination and against violation of international treaties and agreements, or you aren’t. I’ve even changed my mind about calling anyone but Germany and Italy part of the ‘Axis’ let alone Japan, since reading the author’s own surrender documents he uses to prove the USSR was supposedly a member of our ‘Allies’ based upon the Atlantic Conference and Charters’.Clousseau 21:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal - One Global War

[edit] Japan

Quote — It doesn't matter how many times London or Berlin tried to over-simplify the global situation as 'Axis vs Allies', that still doesn't change the fact that Japan and the USSR did not see the 2 wars as 1 war, 'black and white', 'axis and allies'.

These articles, especially when dealing with Japan, seem to focus more on the Tripartite Pact(Axis if you will) as being the other half of the black and white, clear-cut, them and us, alliance against the Allies. Rather than the fact that Japan actually joined it to IMPROVE not HARM relations with the Soviet Union, rather than the fact that Japan intended it's membership from the start to be something to give-up to please and make peace with the Americans. But that's not how it comes across.

No. The pact was to enable Japan negotiate from a position of strength and force America to accept Japan’s position in China. The civilian leaders may have wanted peace/Improve relations but it’s military especially of the Army had wanted an alliance with Germany since 1939. Japan did see it as one War.

"The liason conference met on February 3 to discuss Matsuoka’s forthcoming visit to Europe. Matsuoka explained to his collegues that from the very beginning of the negiotiations for the Tripartite Pact, neither Germany nor Japan entertained any thought of having Soviet Russia as an Alliance partner. If an opportunity presented itself, Japan and Germany would attack Soviet Russia from both corners of the vast empire. The proposed non-agression or neutrality pact would not change these basic assumptions."

— p.197 Agony of Choice: Matsuoka Yosuke and the Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1880-1946.

You're obviously cherry picking. Besides the proofs below you should maybe read Wikipedia's article on Matsuoka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C5%8Dsuke_Matsuoka
You keep saying Japan was part of the Axis because it could have done something eventhough it chose not to.
You keep inferring the Tripartite Pact was an activated military alliance which it never was.
Someone here, i think it was the author himself? even said "it doesn't matter what kind of alliances were signed, alliances are alliances"(paraphrazing), which is ridiculous. The 'type' of alliance is exactly why we did not declare war on Stalin when he invaded Poland with Hitler. The 'type' of alliance is why Japan would sign the 'defensive' Tripartite Pact but not the 'offensive' Pact of Steel.
The author of this article comes across as one of those people who cannot understand why NATO considers the war in Afghanistan as a separate and different war from the war in Iraq.AthabascaCree (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote — It doesn't matter how many times London or Berlin tried to over-simplify the global situation as 'Axis vs Allies', that still doesn't change the fact that Japan and the USSR did not see the 2 wars as 1 war, 'black and white', 'axis and allies'.

Hideki Tojo’s address to Diet in which he states

"In regard to Europe, the Imperial government at this time wishes to sincerely express its felicitation to Germany and Italy that are cooperating with Japan in the fulfillment of the same objective in this war and achieving great war results by overcoming various difficulties. America and Britain are undergoing a continuous change due to defeats suffered in this war and are carrying out vicious propaganda by constantly accusing our country of brutal acts. The fact that the countries of the world have been led by such a maneuver on the part of the distressed America and Britain has enabled them to realize that this has caused the grand union of the Axis countries that are extending political cooperation."

Tokyo, May 27, 1942 —— Fourth Paragraph down.

"The shining countries of Germany and Italy have made considerable preparations and have started on a bold military operation. The Axis powers are achieving brilliant war results in all theaters of war. In regard to the North African front, the Axis forces have broken through the powerful British forces and have established a secure structure under their control. In the Mediterranean Sea, the Axis naval forces have wrenched air and sea power from the British forces. In the various areas of the Atlantic waters, Axis forces are inflicting tremendous losses on the sea transportation conditions of both America and Britain, and lately the rate of losses inflicted on them have increased greatly. As a result, the life of America and Britain is rapidly vanishing. Such brilliant war results are truly dependent on the immovable fighting spirit and the (united strength) of the brilliant countries of Germany and Italy. I join with you in expressing our sincere congratulations to Germany and Italy. The present war situation which has turned to the advantage of the Axis powers affords Japan, Germany, and Italy to join their hands and fight together in the future through a long war. Suffering from continuous defeats, in England there are many cases of destitute living conditions. On the other hand, in America, a country which does not have a clear picture of the war objective, the people are upset by the voice of expanding great figures of war expenditures which the country is not capable of carrying through, and they are facing increasing domestic difficulties due to the enormous number of shipping losses. Both America and Britain now are heading toward destruction day by day."

Hideki Tojo July 27th, 1942 —— Fourth Paragraph

Uh, you do realize that all these quotes do is prove their point that Japan was not part of the Axis. I don't know how well you did in English class, but your quotes only prove Tojo spoke of the Axis as a separate pact Japan was not part of. So why do you keep including Japan as part of the Axis? AthabascaCree (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, whoever this is quoting Tojo is literally proving the point that even Tojo did not see Japan as part of the Axis, he saw it as a separate alliance from his own. It's incredible this author actually helps prove Japan as not part of the Axis and still won't admit it. I found another proof this time from a quote from Litinov's official governmental position statement on the Japanese-America war received from Molotov. Page 82, Slavinsky. When asked by US Secretary of State Hull regarding Russia's position on war with Japan, newly arrived Soviet Minister Maxim Litinov, upon waiting for instructions from Moscow for a reply, so replied:

"Our public opnion fully realised that declaration of war on Japan by the USSR would weaken the force of the USSR's resistance to the Hitlerite troops, and redound to the benefit of Hitler's Germany. We think Hitler's Germany is our main common enemy, and because of that, weakening the USSR's resistance to the Hitlerite aggression would lead to strengthening the Axis power, and to the detriment of the USSR and all our Allies."


:::Well there you have it. The official governmental position statement on the Japanese-American war as instructed by Stalin to Molotov to Litinov clearly segregating Japan from the Axis as well. What does it take for this author to admit that it is only our propaganda that continues to claim Japan was part of the 'Axis'. Only our historians for obvious reasons. Do you want to be historically correct here with latest information on Wikipedia? or do you just want to continue repeating 50 year old victor propaganda instead?

I just found another evidence. Page 92 Soviet Ambassador Malik reporting on Tojo.

"Prime Minister Tojo and Foreign Minister Togo especially emphasised the strategic importance of Japan's relations with the Axis countries. Malike worte that rumours were circulating in Tokyo that the Germans were not too happy with Japan. It was using a 'golden opportunity' to expand its aggressive conquests and as yet displaying no great enthusiasm for REAL cooperation with its partners in aggression, FOBBING THEM OFF with resounding phrases about 'friendship', 'community of aims' and 'sinceirty of relations'. Obviously this did not suit the Germans, 'therefore Tojo and Togo had to assure Hitler and Mussolini yet again from the parliamentary platform of their most benevolent intentions towards the Axis."

The above quote from the Soviets no less, not only also proves again that Tojo and Togo considered the Axis a sepearate entity from Japan, but it also deflates all these Tojo speech quotes above as being exactly what Soviet Ambassador to Japan Malik pointed out the Germans were complaining of. All talk, no action.Befuddler (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote — I have no problem with stating that some Japanese ambassadors outright told the Russians they remained 'allied' to Germany and Italy under the Tripartite Pact even after the German invasion of Russia. My problem with this article(and my students), is that it doesn't define what they meant by 'allied' nor give enough attention to the fact that Japan actually honored The Soviet-Japan Neutrality Pact, even when Stalin seemed on his last legs, as well.

The Kantokuen plan

"The Japanese army had repeatedly been asked by the German Armed Forces High Command (OKW) and Army High Command (Oberkommando des Heeres or OKH) in Berlin, as well as the German Ambassador, Eugen Ott, in Tokyo, to participate in the war against the Soviet Union and was quite fascinated by the Germany victories on the Eastern Front. In July 1941, the Japanese army thus had begun the Kwantung Army Special Mobilization Exercise in Manchuria, aiming to attack the Soviet Union in September if the Soviet Siberian Army moved to the front in Europe. In this exercise fourteen divisions, with 850,000 men and 220,000 horses, including ammunitions and provisions, were prepared for war on the opposite side of the Pacific only four months before Pearl Harbor, but the army could not push through the cabinet a campaign against the Soviets."

Source please!
I can find the below in "Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fal of the Imperial Japanese Army" by Meirion and Susie Harries. Page 289. But I cannot find your above quote in these books.
Even if true, the above only proves what your critics are saying, that the Japanese were not willing to go to war with the USSR, and did not start war with the USSR. I don't understand why you respond to questions like a politician, not answering the question, but quoting a different fact instead.AthabascaCree (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"As for operations in the North, behind the fiction of major army maneuvers - code-named Kantokuen - troops were building up in Manchukuo. The plan called for sixteen divisions to be readied for the assault, and for a logistical base created for six more. During July 1941, a force of around 850,000 men was assembled in Manchukuo, and there they waited for the "persimmon to ripen," for Stalin to pull enough troops out of the Soviet Far East to give a Japanese attack a hope of success. But Stalin withdrew only a limited number of troops during July, and on August 9 any thought of attack during 1941 was abandoned."

Why do you stop there? If you read the rest of the paragraphs you get a very different impression. For example, if I quote the top of that very same page we get a different impression from the one you are promoting. Pag 288

"On June 24, two days after the start of the Nazi onslaught, the services reached a compromise: Japan was to prepare secretly, while awaiting an "extremely favorable" opportunity to attack Russia. The fact that the army was prepared to make this kind of compromise seems an acknowledgement of their humiliation at Nomonhan. The High Command recognized the significance of technological superiority and felt confident of success only when Stalin had withdrawn sufficient troops to make possible a Japanese advantage in manpower of two to one. As for the Kwantung Army itself, they wanted not only a three-to-one superiority but also evidence of a decline in the enemy's morale."

:::Reading the whole chapter instead of just those paragraphs you present leave me with a far less 'pro-attack' impression than you are trying to argue, sorry.

The Japanese had planned to attack the Soviets; the Army had supported the Strike North strategy against the Soviet Union and the Navy Strike South strategy against the European Colonies in Asia and the United States. But after the embargo of oil in July 1941 by the United States, the Strike South strategy was thought of as more appealing. With most European having troops withdrawn to fight in Europe and the resource and oil rich colonies in South East Asia.

That's not true and you haven't answered the question.
First, according to the that book by experts on Japan, Jukes and Slavinsky, page 31.

"However, something else clear to Matsuoka and to Konoe's Cabinet as a while was that the conversation with Ribbentrop in Fuschl was extremely important. Obvoiusly Germany was energenitally preparing for war with the USSR in the very near future. But strangely, while preparing for a clash with the Russian giant, Germany not only was NOT SEEKING JAPAN'S HELP, but, ON THE CONTRARY, was trying to direct it southwards to Singapore, FURTHER AWAY FROM TH ELINE OF CONTACT OF JAPANESE AND AND SOVIET FORCES IN MANCHURIA. What cold this mean? Did they know, and to what exten, what was going on in Berlin, and might impatct on Soviet-Japanese relations? What did Rome think and intend to do? Clairfication of all these matters was yet another reason for Matsuoka to make and urgent trip to Euopre. There could be no delay."

Even if you read Matsuoka's quotes in that book with the Soviet, German and Italian ambassadors, he is sincere when he asks with great concern about rumors of tensions between Moscow and Berlin and both Molotov and Ribbentrop are quoted telling him things are fine and Ribbentrop promises to Matsuoka to help convince Russia to sign an alliance with Japan. Hell, all the quotes makes it sound like even Ribbentrop wasn't sure what Hitler was going to do.
What shocked me was that the Japanese didn't learn of Operation Barbarossa from the Germans, despite your claim of their alliance, but instead from American Secretary of State Cordell Hull.

Page 28

"At that time Hitler confirmed the 'Barbarossa' plan. Although its content was kept profoundly secret, information that Germany was preparing for war against the Soviet Union soon began reaching Tokyo through various channels. One such was the Japanese-American negotiations on reducing tenion in relations between them, which opened in autumn 1940. American diplomats shared U intelligence data about an imminent German attack on the Soviet Union with the Japanese. Secreary of State Cordell Hull subsequently admitted 'Information that we had about Hitler's preparateions to invade Russia was especiallly useful to me in the negotiations with the Japanese. It excluded all possibility of an agreement between Russia and Japan.'"

What kind of 'allies' are the Japanese to the Germans if the not only don't warn them of the T-34 tank they got creamed with at Khalkhin-Gol just when Hitler was betraying them by signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, but didn't tell the Germans that the Americans had such great intelligence on the Germans. Hull was all but admitting they were reading German codes, yet the Japanese never warned the Germans? I agree with that Oxford encyclopedia quote, the Tripartite Pact had no real cooperation or coordination beyond the Ribbentrop-Oshima agreement that Japan should make Singapore their primary target. It sure doesn't sound like much of an alliance until the end when Hitler finally agreed to share his best stuff, by then, too late though.
Your great quote highlighting the Japanese preparations at height of 'war-game', order of battle, numbers and deployment is really neat information...but you again just don't get it. The criticism is that your article refuses to admit that it was the USSR, NOT Japan, who violated their Neutrality Pact. You really do sound like those people who still claim Iraq was behind 9/11 despite all the research to the contrary.AthabascaCree (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


The United States was seen as weaker enemy than the Soviet Union and frustrated by it's attempts to undermine it's efforts in China, a war with America and Britain was seen as more advantegeous. The Japanese thought they could manipulate isolationist sentiments in the United States to their advantage, by inflicting heavy defeats/causualties and fighting a limited war they could force the United States in accepting a peace treaty(they hoped that to achieve what they had against the Russians in 1904/05) and then attack the Soviet Union after they had secured the resources. However they underestimated American industrial strength and resolve. Thats why the Japanese did not attack the Soviet Union had they had the opportunity they would have. The Japanese still had plans to invade the Soviet Union until 1943/44, after that the tide had turned.

The critics have used quotes from biographies of Matsuoka and Konoe proving that the very reason Matsuoka was sacked was because he had opposing views on relations with the USSR. I got no doubt that even Konoe's Cabinet would consider war with the USSR given the right conditions if they had already secured their '500 million Chinese' Tojo was quoted and their Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. But you make that sound like something just around the corner, you make it sound like Japan could secure loyalty and control of all of China and South-east asia one year and be ready for war with Russia the next. You leave out the fact that a major reason the Japs didn't want war with Russia(and I'm sure someone here did quote that from a book), was because Japan felt it would push the Soviet Union closer to the United States and American bases in Sakhalin and Siberia. Given all these quotes from historical sourcs on Japan, I can't believe you won't correct your article.AthabascaCree (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

'Sources
 Harries, Meirion and Susie Harries. Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army., p.569 p.289.

Yoshiō MATUSHITA, Tanaka Sakusen Buchō no Shōgen, p.168,

C. Hosoya, "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact," in: James Morley (ed.), The Fateful Choice: Japan’s Advance into Southeast Asia, 1939-41, 1980, p.104

Personally I think the book of the same title written far more recently is probably more accurate. We learn so much more with each new released file from Secrecy Acts etc.AthabascaCree (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Alvin D. Coox, Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia, 1939, 2 volumes (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1985), pp.1035ff.]

Soviet Union and Japan Quote — It doesn't matter how many times London or Berlin tried to over-simplify the global situation as 'Axis vs Allies', that still doesn't change the fact that Japan and the USSR did not see the 2 wars as 1 war, 'black and white', 'axis and allies'.


While the Soviet Union shifted its strategic attenion westward concerns over Japanese actions forced the Stavka to mantained strong defenses in the Far East. After December 1941, however, Japanese involvement in a Pacific war with the United States largely negated concerns over its eastern flank. Japan was Germany's ally and more obligated to it than the Soviets; had they had the opportunity the Japanese would have violated the Pact and would've attacked the Soviets —(mentioned above). There were also border skirmishes, unlawful seizures by the Japanese of Soviet Ships(some Soviet vessels were sunk), certain straits were closed to Soviet shipping during the time of "peace" and the also Japanese exchanged military intelligence and other information with the Germans on Soviets. see "Northern Territories" and Beyond: Russian, Japanese, and American Perspectives By James E. Goodby, Vladimir I. Ivanov, Nobuo Shimotomai

The funny thing is that by listing ONLY the Japanese violations and provocations(man you really need to read that Slavinsky book with the rest of us) you seem to prove that famous preface quote by that Geoffrey Jukes guy in Slavinsky's later book. You obviously haven't read the book. A main theme of the book is that Soviet/Russian historians have long continued to promote now-disproven historial propaganda lies and our historians in the west have constantly listed off all Russia's violations and untrustworthiness EXCEPT for this one Japanese-Soviet Pact.
So again, you come off just like those 'experts' who to this day insist, despite all the new evidence to the contrary, that Iraq was behind 9/11 and had WMDs coming off the assembly line. These critics are right, you keep cherry-picking already dis-proven sources to avoid updating the historical record.
Proof is your above paragraph predictably pointing out only the Japanese violations and not mentioning those by the Soviets like at least the Russian historian Slavinsky will admit to. AthabascaCree (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Soviets stated to the allies that they would enter the war.

Soviet denunciation of Neutrality pact, 5th April[17]
...—The neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan was concluded on April 13, 1941, that is, before the attack of Germany on the USSR and before the outbreak of war between Japan on the one hand and England and the United States on the other. Since that time the situation has been basically altered. Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR. Furthermore Japan is waging a war with the USA and England, which are allies of the Soviet Union.

That's so funny after the quote of Hull sharing British code-breaking intel on Germany just to break up Soviet-Japanese relations. If their sharing was so signficant, why didn't they tell the Germans Hull told Japan they had detailed information on Hitler's Operation Barbarossa months prior? Why didn't they at least warn the Germans of the T-34s they experienced at Khalkhin-Gol(Nomonhan). There is no doubt Berlin, Rome and Tokyo shared some info help with eachother, though obviously not near enough until it was too late. You know how far behind you are in your research, you don't mention the recent works including those Australians proving Stalin was sharing information about the Allies with the Japanese. Either you are so far behind, or these guys are right and you are intentionally representing propaganda here rather than historical fact.AthabascaCree (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense, and the prolongation of that pact has become impossible.

On the strength of the above and in accordance with Article Three of the above mentioned pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the lapse of the five year period of operation of the pact, the Soviet Government hereby makes know to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941......

True to its obligation as an Ally, the Soviet Government has accepted the proposal of the Allies, and has joined in the declaration of the Allied powers of July 26.........[18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFX 1 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First you refuse to mention the existance of the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact signed just before the German invasion of Russia and held till the Soviets violated after Germany's surrender.
Then you point out that the USSR did consider the Neutrality Pact valid and was honouring it by the very fact that you quote the required official announcement 1 year before it's expiration it's intent not to renew.
Finally you refuse to point out that it was the USSR NOT Japan, that violated the Neutrality Pact by the end of the war. Unbelievable!AthabascaCree (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States

Quotes — Even the United States of America didn't consider them the same war even after Pearl Harbor, that's exactly why the US REFUSED to declare war on Germany and Italy after declaring war on Japan. That's all we're saying.

...'Refuse' is appropriate here in the same way Japan 'refused' Germany's calls to declare war on the Soviet Union, the USA 'refused' Britain and others' calls to declare war on the Nazis for years. However embarassing, it is true.

...the United States of America saw the 2 wars as separate war.

You are Wrong!

Are you serious? I read your entire thread and am seriously wondering if you are trying to pull a 'Steven Colbert' here? lol, pretending to argue one side only to make it look bad?
Whenever someone says we always saw both wars as the same war I have to side with the Chinese argument here how our history books only link them as one war after the attack on Pearl Harbor not the Soviet and American-backed Chinese war with the invading Japanese declared back in 1937.
And if you are going to give us that bull about Japan attacked the US on behalf of the Tripartite Pact instead of America's involvement in her separate war with China, another, 'oh please'. Now I understand this obsession with the word 'hypocrisy'. So don't give us 'we saw them as the same war from the start'. That only makes us look as bad about our historical 'fact checking' as our modern farce linking Saddam, Iraq and WMDs and 9/11.
You seriously want us to believe that the US could not have refused to declare war on the Nazis because it was never asked? You gotta be kidding us lol. You list off all the incidents of the US Administration violating it's own let alone International Neutrality Laws to meet with, coordinate, give aid and actual military support for and you claim this all came unsolicited without any request for America to actually enter the war against the Germans? Oh please.
Instead of listing off quotes from your magazine editors making claims on what Roosevelt thought, why not try using actual Roosevelt quotes. Here, try the Encyclopedia.The Oxford Companion to WWII; Oxford Companion Press; New York 1995

"Roosevelt as War Leader" Page 962

"Although Roosevelt discussed US entry into the war with Churchill at the conference, he saw no means to bring the country into the fighting without a public and Congressional debate that would do more to divide the American people rather than unite them behind an extended war effort. All the public opinion polls he saw in 1940-1 convinced him that while he could command a majority support for US belligerency, he had no means of creating a broad, stable consensus for war. Only a major provocation abroad seemed likkely to arouse a strong domestic commitment to fight. For example, in May 1941, the unprovoked sinking by a German U-boat in a non-war zone of an American freighter, *Robin Moor, had not impressed Roosevelt as a sufficient casus belli. Nor did hesee the exchange of fire between a German submarine and the American destroyer*Greer in September 1941 as sufficient to create a public demand for war, despite his mis-leading description of the attack as unprovoked. As he told the British ambassador, Lord Halifax, 'his perpetual problem was to steer a course between...(1) the wish of 70% of Americans to keep out of war; (2) the wish of 70% of American to do everything to break Hitler, even it if means war. He [the President]said that if he asked for a declaration of war he wouldn't get it, and opinion would swing against him. He therefore intended to go on doing whatever he best could to help us, and declarations of war were out of fashion.'"


Those are Roosevelt's own words to Lord Halifax! So who do I believe, these guys who quote sources quoting Roosevelt on Roosevelt, or you and your sources on Roosevelt? Nah, I think they are right, not wrong as you claim.Stuperduck13 (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The United States saw it as ONE war with different theaters of operations and each being named for the geographical area — Europe, the Pacific, the Mediterranean and the China Burma India theater.

The United States did not refuse because they were never asked by the British TO enter the war. The United States, before the Pearl Harbour, did TAKE action to support the Allies; Britain to a large extant was being kept alive by America. Athough it did not declare war, the United States was committed to the support of Britain and the allies; in his Arsenal of Democracy speech he states

"If Great Britain goes down, the Axis powers will control the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australasia, and the high seas-and they will be in a position to bring enormous military and naval resources against this hemisphere. It is no exaggeration to say that all of us, in all the Americas, would be living at the point of a gun-a gun loaded with explosive bullets, economic as well as military."

"The fall of France had caused the Roosevelt administration to recast it’s policy strongly in favor of helping the British Empire. American factories worked on orders for the British military. In September 1940 the ‘destroyers for bases’ deal signalled a deepening American involvement in Britain’s war. In light of American opposition to German policy, it made sense to adopt a less generous attitude towards Japan, the new Asian wing of the Axis. In late July the Americans prohibited the export of aviation grade gasoline, lubricating oils and certain grades of scrap iron to Japan. After the Japanese entry into northern Indochina the American embargoed the export of all types of scrap iron".

— Singapore, 1942: Britain's Greatest Defeat,2002, p.24 By Alan Warren

Plans against the Axis before America's entry

ABC-1 Conferences
The ABC Conference
The American-British staff conversations opened in Washington on 29 January 1941 and continued through fourteen sessions to 27 March, when the delegates submitted a final report, commonly known as ABC-1. Held between Britain, Canada and the United States 12-10 months before America's entry into the war, it outlined the major strategic policies. At the outset, the British stated their position clearly and fully:

1. The European Theater is the vital theater where a decision must first be sought.'

2. The general policy should therefore be to defeat Germany and Italy first, and then deal with Japan.

3. The security of the Far Eastern position, including Australia and New Zealand, is essential to the cohesion of the British Commonwealth and to the maintenance of its war effort. Singapore is the key to the defense of these interests and its retention must be assured.

4. Support of neutrals and underground groups in resisting the Axis

5. The "early elimination" of Italy as an Axis partner

Rainbow Five
RAINBOW 1 assumed the United States to be at war without major allies. United States forces would act jointly to prevent the violation of the Monroe Doctrine by protecting the territory of the Western Hemisphere north of 10 degrees South Latitude, from which the vital interests of the United States might be threatened. The joint tasks of the Army and Navy included protection of the United States, its possessions and its sea-borne trade. A strategic defensive was to be maintained in the Pacific, from behind the line Alaska-Hawaii-Panama, until developments in the Atlantic permitted concentration of the fleet in mid-Pacific for offensive action against Japan.

RAINBOW 2 assumed that the United States, Great Britain, and France would be acting in concert, with limited participation of U.S. forces in continental Europe and in the Atlantic. The United States could, therefore, undertake immediate offensive operations across the Pacific to sustain the interests of democratic powers by the defeat of enemy forces.

RAINBOW 3 assumed the United States to be at war without major allies. Hemisphere defense was to be assured, as in RAINBOW 1, but with early projection of U.S. forces from Hawaii into the western Pacific.

RAINBOW 4 assumed the United States to be at war without major allies, employing its forces in defense of the whole of the Western Hemisphere, but also with provision for United States Army forces to be sent to the southern part of South America, and to be used in joint operations in eastern Atlantic areas. A strategic defensive, as in RAINBOW 1, was to be maintained in the Pacific until the situation in the Atlantic permitted transfer of major naval forces for an offensive against Japan.

RAINBOW 5 assumed the United States, Great Britain, and France to be acting in concert; hemisphere defense was to be assured as in RAINBOW 1, with early projection of U.S. forces to the eastern Atlantic, and to either or both the African and European Continents; offensive operations were to be conducted, in concert with British and allied forces, to effect the defeat of Germany and Italy. A strategic defensive was to be maintained in the Pacific until success against the European Axis Powers permitted transfer of major forces to the Pacific for an offensive against Japan.

Kittredge, U.S.-British Cooperation, Sec. I, Part D, Notes, pp. 42-46; Memo, JPC to JB, 23 Jun 39; Min, JB Mtg, 30 Jun 39, JB 325, Ser 642.


The main points of the Casablanca conference was also that Germany would be defeated first.

Before US entry into the war

Destroyers for bases agreement; 3 September 1941

Lend Lease Act; March 11, 1941.

The Proclamation of National Emergency May 15, 1941

Starting in mid-April [1941] US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic, reporting their observations to the British. At the same time, British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May 12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired in the USA, contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields. British convey escorted by US warships as far as greenland.

Took over occupation of Iceland in July 1941, previously occupied by Britain after the fall of Denmark.[19]

11% Naval Expansion program approved, June 1941. [20] Military expansion and preparation 1940/41.

After Germany invaded the Soviet Union the United States agreed to give supplies to the Soviets [21], [22].

US warships attacked by U-boat [23] and [24] The USS Reuben James was sunk by a U-boat two months(October 31) before America's entry into World War II.

In November 1941 the US repealed parts of the 1939 neutrality act US repels neutrality act


Quote — ...when FDR didn't have the support to declare war on him even after Pearl Harbor.

Polls taken before the German declaration of war on December 11
George Gallup, ed., The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1935–1971, vol. 1 (New York: Random House, 1972).

December 23, 1941, poll taken December 12–17. "Which country is the greater threat to America's future—Germany or Japan?": Germany—64%, Japan—15% (p.312).

Hadley Cantril, ed., Public Opinion, 1935-46 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), A compilation of several different polling organisation, such as Gallup/AIPO, and the Elmo Roper/Fortune Magazine poll.

December 10, 1941. "Should President Roosevelt have asked Congress to declare war on Germany, as well as Japan?": yes-90%, no–7%(p.1173, AIPO)

December 10, 1941. "Why do you think Japan is fighting the United States- what are the underlying reasons?": "urged by Germany"-48%, "miscellaneous"-6%, "no answer and don’t know"-12% (p. 1078, AIPO)

February 1942."Which of these statements comes close to your idea of the main reason why Japan attacked us": "The Japanese government is doing its part as Hitler’s ally, and it’s move was part of German strategy": — 68.5%(p. 1078, Fortune Magazine).

Gallup/AIPO national poll of all forty-eight continental states taken December 1-19.

December 23, 1941. "Which country is a greater threat to America’s future-Germany or Japan?": "Believe Germany the greater threat"—64%, "Believe Japan"—15%. "In the American institute in the United States the voters who singled out Germany as the greater threat gave two main reasons — that Germany is the 'core', the 'driving force' of the Axis, while Japan is the 'puppet' and that Germany’s aims are world-wide" (New York Times, p. 4)

Quote — and that's why even after declaring war on Japan out that even the USA refused to declare war on Germany and Italy and their Axis.

Cincinnati Enquirer, December 10, 1941

"..though Mr. Roosevelt did not say so in his address to Congress, will any realistic man contend that the issue is merely between Japan and the United States? Too clearly, it is between the Axis powers and ourselves. Hitler is the real enemy and it is all one battle. We are now in it up to the hilt and to the end….. The President has made it clear that Germany was—and is—behind Japan in the War trust upon us."

[edit] Useless Debate

Your first line is objectively and empircally unproveable and from then on, as the other critics pointed out, you continue to cherry pick quotes and sources.

Even your latest quotes of Matsuoka you conveniently fail to point out they were exactly why he was ousted from his position, exactly why the Konoye and the cabinet resigned just to get rid of him and those inexplicable complete reversals of a man who for the longest time tried to promote alliance with the Soviet Union. But, as always, you conveniently only tell part of the story, leaving out the rest.

I could go through books quoting where the Japanese felt the more immediate priority of the Tripartite Pact was relations with the Soviet Union, but the very fact you leave out the Neutrality Pact completely proves further debate with you is fruitless. You are obviously determined to represent our propagandized view on the subject.

Even all the lists of you mentioning of this or that Japanese admiration for the 'Axis' still does not change the fact that the Japanese leadership did not, not even Tojo, signed any documentation agreeing to the term to describe Japan.

Even the Oxford dictionary has changed the definition, which surprised me when students pointed it out, and the whole hypocrisy of this representation of history and supposed reasons for war and foundations of principles of international law,... as Boris Slavinsky pointed out.

Have it your own way. Wikipedia lets you tell only half(if that) the story and mis-represent historical fact to continue to promote what others here have also noted as a 'pro-us/we' version of non 'us/we' topics.

This is exactly the attitude that has some of our leaders still insisting Iraq was behind 9/11 and building WMDs. Refusal to read or listen to anything one doesn't want to hear/read. Mind already made up.

You've only convinced me why the schoolboards don't consider these articles as objective and empirical and we and our students efforts here fruitless. I believe I am the last teacher here in our area to even try lol. Test over, they were right, I was wrong. Participation ends.Befuddler (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proof of the true Japanese motives regarding the Tripartite Pact

[edit] Japan

Quote — It doesn't matter how many times London or Berlin tried to over-simplify the global situation as 'Axis vs Allies', that still doesn't change the fact that Japan and the USSR did not see the 2 wars as 1 war, 'black and white', 'axis and allies'.

These articles, especially when dealing with Japan, seem to focus more on the Tripartite Pact(Axis if you will) as being the other half of the black and white, clear-cut, them and us, alliance against the Allies. Rather than the fact that Japan actually joined it to IMPROVE not HARM relations with the Soviet Union, rather than the fact that Japan intended it's membership from the start to be something to give-up to please and make peace with the Americans. But that's not how it comes across.


Wiki-author wrote in response to the above... “No. The pact was to enable Japan negotiate from a position of strength and force America to accept Japan’s position in China. The civilian leaders may have wanted peace/Improve relations but it’s military especially of the Army had wanted an alliance with Germany since 1939. Japan did see it as one War.”

Old propaganda and wrong. I have to agree with your critics. You can't seem to do anything but portray a non-American topic/pact only in terms of how it was viewed by an affected America. We have proven that dissuading America from entering either war was not the only main reason for Japan's desire to join the Tripartite Pact but you still refuse to accept this.

Oh I agree with your point that Konoe wanted to use membership in the Tripartite Pact as a bargaining chip with America. But I totally disagree with the manner in which you deliberately leave out major historical facts to intentionally mis-represent the topic. That just reminds me of how that 'cherry picked intel' got us into the Iraq WMD and alliance with Alquaeda mistakes. The funny thing is that today it is America and Britain who seem to be facing the same problems Japan did in China. Wanting to secure her economic interests, even if on foreign soil and puppet regimes, yet unable to even agree on a time-table amongst ourselves, let alone with anyone else, on a timetable for withdrawal from an unpopular war.

I agree with Jukes' quote in Slavinsky's book at the bottom of all this, how hypocritical we are.

The problem with you using the following Matsuoka quote is that you completely ignore the fact that Matsuoka was fired for this very attitude.

blockquote>

"The liason conference met on February 3 to discuss Matsuoka’s forthcoming visit to Europe. Matsuoka explained to his collegues that from the very beginning of the negiotiations for the Tripartite Pact, neither Germany nor Japan entertained any thought of having Soviet Russia as an Alliance partner. If an opportunity presented itself, Japan and Germany would attack Soviet Russia from both corners of the vast empire. The proposed non-agression or neutrality pact would not change these basic assumptions." — p.197 Agony of Choice: Matsuoka Yosuke and the Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1880-1946.

First, let’s deal with your Matsuoka. Even Wikipedia’s own biography on the man points out why he can’t be taken as the voice of the Japanese government of the time and further proof dis-crediting your claim regarding the military wanting to ally with Germany in 1939.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosuke_Matsuoka
   For example, even just quoting the Wikipedia bio on him…

“Despite the military's opposition to his ideas, Matsuoka continued to loudly advocate an invasion of Russia and became increasingly reckless in his diplomatic dealings with the United States, which he believed was conspiring to provoke Japan into a war. Matsuoka's hostility towards the U.S. (a vocal opponent of Japan's military campaigns) alarmed Konoe, who wanted to avoid war with the United States. Konoe and the military hierarchy colluded to get rid of Matsuoka. To this end, Konoe resigned in July 1941 and his cabinet ministers resigned with him, including Matsuoka. Konoe immediately was made prime minister again, and replaced Matsuoka as Foreign Minister with Admiral Teijiro Toyoda.”

The below should be proof you are wrong in your representation of Japan's interest in the Tripartite Pact to only intimidate America and ally with Germany and not sincere about allying with the USSR.

Evidence Source #1 from one of your own listed sources you obviously did not read or chose to ignore parts of. Admittedly these sources are all British, Russian or American therefore cannot help but be accused of ‘victor-bias’, however since they disagree with these Wiki-authors regarding Japan and ww2, it should be believed all the more. Again, the irony here is that this first quote is from one of the very books you claim support your arguments.

“Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army” 1991, Meiron and Susie Harries. Page 286.

“However, in the spring of 1941, the emphasis within the government as a whole was more than ever on diplomacy. One key project has nothing to do with the South: the scheme by Foreign Minister Matsuoka to turn the “betrayal” of the German-Soviet rapprochement to Japan’s advantage. He wanted to build a coalition of “anti-status quo” nations---Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan---which would only deter America, but would permit the advance south to proceed without fear of opportunist attack from the North. The first step toward this coalition had been Japan’s entry into the Axis in September 1940. Six months later, Matsuoka traveled to Moscow and Berlin to complete his grand alliance.”

Oh, and before you go 'oh oh, they said Japan's entry into the Axis', keep your pants on. That's like being surprised to find the word 'Hell' in biblical literature. If anything, the fact even these authors disagree with you when they use the term 'Axis' only goes to show how biased your reporting here is. By the way, when you set out quotes, try to put the book title, author and page number with the quote. And I don't know where you get a quote from this book on page 600 something when all those pages are only indexes. My copy of this book only has 485 or so pages of actual writing.

Evidence Source #2.(Russian and British historians using more recently released Soviet diplomacy and intelligence records and interviews, who like Toland and Slavinsky, balk at the use of the term Axis to include Japan as 'propagandic history'). “The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact” 2004, Boris Slavinsky, translated and added to by Geoffrey Jukes. Page 5.

“Soviet publications hardly ever mention that one of Japan’s main reasons for concluding the Neutrality Pact with the USSR was to induce Moscow to cease giving military aid to Chiang Kai-Shek. This is proved by the specific instructions Matsuoka received for his journey to Europe, and statements by people who accompanied him. For example, his secretary, Toshikazu Kase, wrote Ostensibly our intention was to meet Hitler and Mussolini, but in reality our covert objective was a meeting with Stalin and improvement in Japanese-Soviet relations….By negotiating with Soviets, we hoped to stop Soviet aid to China, and thus deal a strong blow at Chiang (Kai-Shek)’.16. Page 25. “On 30 October 1940 Tatekawa told Molotov that the Konoe government wanted to conclude a non-aggression pact similar to the Soviet-German pact of 23 August 1939. In that connection, negotiations about a Neutrality Pact were being terminated, and all questions in dispute between the two countries would be resolved after conclusion of a non-aggression pact. When Molotov asked what was the difference between the Japanese government’s two proposals, Tatekawa explained that a Neutrality pact was inadequate because it did not clearly express the question of non-aggression. After Japan had concluded the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, the government considered it appropriate to conclude a non-aggression pact with the USSR. Once this was done, Japan would be prepared to begin negotiations for review of the Peking Convention, and to consider other questions.”

Slavinsky’s book quoted on actual diplomat memoirs and Soviet Intelligence documents recently released. PROOF OF 3 POWER TO BE 4 POWER. PAGE XVIII PREFACE. TOP “Adyrkhayev as silent about the Tripartitite Pact’s Article Five, which stated that it was not directed against the Soviet Union; and furthermore, Matsuoka, like Ribbentrop, had attempted to recruit the USSR as its fourth member.”

Preface:

“N.B. Adyrkhayev was a member of the Soviet delegation in 1951 San Francisco peace conference with Japan….He had a truly remarkable career. After graduating from the Japanese section of the Institute of Oriental Studies in May 1940, he was recruited by the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs and sent to the Soviet Embassy in Tokyo, where he worked with no time off, including all the war years, until May 1947. He had excellent Japanese, and was PERSONAL INTERPRETER to the Soviet ambassador, Yakov Malik. After he returned to Moscow he often used to interpret for the highest Soviet leaders, for example in ‘secret’ meeting between Prime Minister Bulganin and Japanese Fisheries Minister Kono, and at Stalin’s April 1951 meeting with Japanese communists.” Same book, xvii

"His assertion that the concessions in North Sakhalin were imposed on us(Russia) by force was at odds with the truth. The Soviet side offered them, and they were profitable for us, because they aided the development of Soviet oil and coal production. Adryrkhayev was silent about the Tripartite Pact's Article Five, which stated it was not directed against the Soviet Union; and furthermore, Matsuoka, like Ribbentrop, had attempted to recruit the USSR as a fourth member."

Page X Translator’s Note

“The Tripartite Pact appeared to provide a solution, in the form of an alliance of germany, Italy and Japan(with other countries, including the Soviet Union, to be invited to join later) aimed at intimidating the United States into staying out of the war. Italy’s dictator, Mussolini, and Japan’s Foreign Minister, Matsuoka, were assured that such was its sole purpose, and Article 5 of the Treaty indeed stated specifically that it was not directed against the Soviet Union. Germany therefore actively misled both its co-signatories, because when they signed the Pact on 27 September 1940, its preparation to invade the USSR were already under way.”

Evidence Source #3.

“Volume 3 of the History of Diplomacy concedes that during Molotov’s visit to Berlin on 12-13 November 1940 Hitler and Ribbentrop proposed the Soviet government join the ‘pact of three powers’ as a fourth member for carving up the British inheritance. In doing this it was assumed that Soviet territorial aspirations wold be ‘aimed southwards from the Soviet Union’s state border in the direction of the Indian Ocean.’ Page 7.

Evidence Source #4. American.

Even this American source “U.S. Army in World War II ‘The war in the Pacific’ Strategy and Command: The First Two Years” refutes your refusal to accept our corrections.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Strategy/Strategy-2.html

“The decision to conclude the Tripartite Pact had been made on 19 September at the Imperial Conference. The agreements reached at this meeting constitute an important guide to what Japan hoped to achieve from the alliance with Germany and Italy and what the policy of the nation would be in the months to come. Clearly, the ministers expected support in their efforts to expand southward and end the war in China. With the co-operation of the Axis they hoped to induce the Russians to advance toward the Persian Gulf, and possibly India, that is, in a direction that would not threaten Japan. They hoped also, with the co-operation of Germany and Italy, to bring pressure on the United States to accept Japan's claims in the south and in China. But the four ministers did not expect to pay for this support with military action, except where it was necessary to gain their own objectives. They agreed that they would assist the Axis against Great Britain by measures short of war, but reserved the right to make their own decisions on the use of armed force against that nation and the United States. If the war in China were near a conclusion, the four ministers decided, then Japan might resort to force to gain its objectives, waiting only for the right --60-- ________________________________________ moment. But until that time, they agreed, Japan would not go to war against Great Britain or the United States unless the situation permitted no delay."31

[edit] It is clear that Japan did not interpret the Tripartite Pact as a commitment to war, and, as a matter of fact, the Emperor agreed to it with misgivings and only after he had been assured that it would not lead to hostilities

.32

The Konoye Cabinet evidently believed that the United States (and the Soviet Union) would not intervene in the Far East if the advance southward was achieved gradually and by diplomatic means. They hoped that the United States would be forced by the Tripartite Pact to remain neutral and that the issue would be between Japan and the British, Dutch, and French who were in no position to dispute Japanese expansion southward. Soviet opposition was to be overcome through the intervention of Germany."33 “

Evidence Source #5. Encyclopedia.

“The Oxford Companion to World War II” 1995, Encyclopedia, Page 1123.

“Tripartite Pact, negotiated in Tokyo and signed in Berlin on 27 September 1940 by Germany, Italy and Japan. It was primarily intended to forestall US intervention in the war, for the terms included promise of mutual aid if any one of the signatories was attacked by a power not already involved in the European war or in the *China Incident. However, secret clauses added at Japan’s request more or less nullified these terms as Japan wanted to obtain concessions from the USA, using its withdrawal from the pact as a bargaining point. But Washington was not intimidated by the pact; on the contrary, the USA intensified its help to China, which made any negotiations impossible for the Japanese. One of the pact’s articles specifically guaranteed the existing German-Soviet relationship (see NAZI-SOVIET PACT), and in November 1940 the USSR was asked to join. However, the conditions Stalin proposed for doing so did not suit Hitler and negotiations ceased, but Rumania, Hungary, and Slovakia signed the same month, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia (which repudiated it almost immediately) signed in March 19[‘c41, and the Nazi Puppet state of Croatia signed on 15 June 1941. Unlike the *Grand Alliance, the Axis coalition formed by the pact had no agreed strategy for fighting the war. See also AXIS STRATEGY AND CO-OPERATION.”

Below I quote from pages 656-7 on the biography of Japanese Prime Minister Konoe from The Oxford Companion to WWII. We pick it up right after Japan learns of Germany’s betrayal of the Tripartite Pact by invading the USSR only 6 weeks after Japan signed The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact.

“The contradictions between these various policies led to divisions within the cabinet and to its resignation in July in order to get rid of Matsuoka. Konoe’s third cabinet was then formed with a new foreign minister and this concentrated on peace negotiations with the USA. When these did not succeed and Washington authorities froze Japanese funds, Konoe offered to visit the USA for direct talks with Roosevelt. The proposal was rejected and the cabinet resigned in October; Konoe rejoined the imperial court as an adviser.”

And below is proof that the ‘Konoe Paper’ did exist. The revised belief since the unsealing of American, British and Russian intelligence and diplomatic records is that Konoe was hoping to provide the Tojos back in Tokyo with a similar fais accomplii Matsuoka did, but in this case, an agreement with Roosevelt to lift the embargo and frozen assets in return for a time-tabled Japanese withdrawal from not only French-Indo China, but China as well. Supposedly such an agreement would give Konoe such prestige he could resist the militarists and war. It would also explain why a war-bound Washington, who were reading the Japanese diplomatic codes even to eachother, would refuse such a meeting, nor make the offer public. Whether this is true or not, the below does prove that Konoe was willing to pull out of French Indo-China and even China and it was Washington who denied him the chance and assured his replacement by someone more hard-line like Tojo.

Evidence Source #6. British?

http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/nichibei/digest/index.html


Fumimaro Konoe Yosuke Matsuoka February 11 (Tue.)(US time) Ambassador Nomura arrives in Washington. Kichisaburo Nomura assumes his duties in Washington as Ambassador to the United States.

March 12 (Wed.) Minister of Foreign Affairs Matsuoka visits Germany and Italy by way of the Soviet Union.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Yosuke Matsuoka visits Germany and Italy by way of the Soviet Union. He works to conclude the Neutrality Pact with the Soviet Union, but was unable to have the country included in the Tripartite Military Alliance with Japan, Germany and Italy.

August 28 (Thurs.)1:00- (US time August 27 12:00–) At a meeting between Ambassador Nomura and Secretary of State Hull, Nomura delivers a copy of the “Konoe Message.”

Ambassador to the United States Kichisaburo Nomura meets with Secretary of State Hull. Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe had prepared for US President Franklin Roosevelt the “Konoe Message” that emphasized the importance of a summit meeting between the two countries’ leaders, and instructs Ambassador Nomura to deliver this message to Roosevelt. Prior to this, Nomura hands a copy of the message to Hull.

September 6 (Sat.) 10:00-12:00 The 6th Imperial Conference (Decision: Outline of Imperial national policy and preparation for war against the US, Britain, and the Netherlands near the end of October.)

The 6th Imperial Conference is held. It is decided that preparations for war at the end of October are necessary as war with Britain and the US is inevitable. It is decided at this conference that Japan will continue negotiations with the US while it prepares for war, and then launch a　quick attack when its request are not agreed to.

October 12 (Sun.)(Time unknown) Prime Minister Konoe holds a meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs Toyoda, Minister of the Army Tojo, Minister of the Navy Oikawa, and Minister of the Cabinet Planning Board Suzuki regarding the advantages and disadvantages of war. The navy opposes withdrawing troops from China.

Prime Minister Konoe invites Minister of Foreign Affairs Teijiro Toyoda, Minister of the Army Hideki Tojo, Minister of the Navy Koshiro Oikawa and Minister of the Cabinet Planning Board Teijiro Suzuki to his private home for a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of war. During the meeting, Konoe and Toyoda point out possible solutions, including withdrawing troops from China, however, Tojo strongly opposes.

Evidence Source #7. British?

Even this American source “U.S. Army in World War II ‘The war in the Pacific’ Strategy and Command: The First Two Years” refutes your refusal to accept our corrections.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Strategy/Strategy-2.html

Page 52 On 23 August 1939 Germany, without Japan's knowledge, concluded a neutrality pact with Russia. A week later Germany invaded Poland and the war in Europe began. The German-Soviet Pact was a stunning blow to Japan's program for expansion and to the Army's prestige. The Japanese felt betrayed and bewildered and the Premier promptly offered his resignation to the Emperor, asserting bitterly that the failure of Japan's foreign policy had resulted from "the unreasonableness of the Army."

--52-- ________________________________________

KONOYE CABINET OF JUNE 1937. Circled faces are, from left, Admirqal Yonai, Premier Konoye, and General Sugiyama. 12 A combination of civilian statesmen and Navy leaders, taking advantage of the Army's political eclipse, then attempted to reorient national policy toward better relations with Great Britain and the United States. The Cabinet formed for this purpose lasted only four months and was succeeded by a compromise Cabinet headed by Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the former Navy Minister.

Finally, last proof against this statement… Wiki-author wrote. The civilian leaders may have wanted peace/Improve relations but it’s military especially of the Army had wanted an alliance with Germany since 1939.

Totally incorrect. If you had said 1936 or late 1940, I'd agree with you. The very moments Hitler was secretly negotiating and signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact with the USSR, Japanese and Soviet armies were clashing with eachother in large-scale battles in August/September 1939. Hitler couldn’t have chosen a worse time to betray Japan's militarists and cause huge loss of face for all those pro-Axis Japanese. Not only did Hitler betray the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan, but he did it at the very moment Japan was literally fighting and bleeding and needing German help the most.

You also again conveniently leave out the fact that even before that, in May 1939, Japan actually REFUSED to join the 'Pact of Steel', the one pact Mussolini referred to as the ‘Axis Pact’.

If you said the Japanese military were again for allying with Germany in 1940, I would definately agree with you. As of Autumn 1940, as dis-trustful and angry as Japan was at Hitler for the Nazi-Soviet Pact, he now had the political influence Japan needed to ally with the Soviet Union and help Japan gain her Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere without even having to resort to war. They wanted Japanese domination of 'liberated' Dutch East Indies and French Indo-China, not German.

But when Hitler betrayed Japan yet again, and instead of helping Japan ally with the Soviet Union to create a New World Order for Eurasia, invaded the USSR instead, while firing Matsuoka, Konoe called for the actual dissolution of the Tripartite Pact, NOT Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact as you claim.

“The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact” Boris Slavinsky, translator and contributor Geoffrey Jukes, 2004.Page 4. "But it is well known that Konoe was firmly against war with the USSR, defended his view after Germany attacked it, and even demanded the dissolution of the Tripartite Pact because of Hitler's treachery."

But to say that the Japanese generals wanted to ally with Germany in 1939 when Hitler couldn’t have betrayed them more is totally wrong.

And to say that just because even Konoe had ordered contingency plans drawn up for war with the USSR does not mean Japan wanted to ally with Germany in a war with Russia, or even as the American Army history page above quotes, wanted to ally with Germany in any war for that matter, especially if they could accomplish their aims without further bloodshed.

After all, the Americans had Plan Orange for war against Japan, Black for Germany even Blue and Green for Britain and France. Every nation has contingency war plans drawn up for neighbours or even distant threats. Until 1939, Canada's military strategy was for plans against American invasion. That does not mean such nations are intent on acting on such contingency plans.

Personally, since we proved to be hypocrites regarding breaking treaties anyways, I think Japan should have attacked the USSR in 1941 and helped the Germans defeat the Soviets. But that's only strategically thinking, not morally. The fact you keep refusing to admit to is that even when Tojo and his militarists got in power, they still did not break their pact with the USSR even when, as you point out, they were militarily prepared to do so. You just refuse to admit that we supported the Soviet Union in violating the same international law and pacts we claimed we were fighting on behalf of.

As for the last claim. Wiki-author wrote. Japan did see it as one War.” “The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact” Boris Slavinsky, translator and contributor Geoffrey Jukes, 2004.

Translator's note xi, bottom paragraph.
"Germany deceived Japan and Italy into signing the Tripartite Pact in the belief that it was intended to deter the USA, and deceived the Soviet Union by suggesting it would be welcomed as a fourth member of the Pact. Then, without consulting either of its co-signatories, it attacked the Soviet Union, which Article 5 of the Pact specifically states was not its target. Japan's unilateral decision to attack the United States, as well as the British and Dutch colonies in South-East Asia, was not based on any evidence of a US intent to attack Japan that needed to be pre-empted. It completely destroyed the ostensible rationale of the Tripartite Pact, and Germany's policy of trying to deter the USA from joining the war. And when the failure of 'blitzkrieg' prompted Germany to seek the Japanese aid against the USSR that it had initiatlly spurned, the distrust each had already sown in the other ensured that each continued to fight a SEPARATE AND LOSING WAR."

All your quotes of Tojo’s speeches only prove that even Tojo saw the Axis as a separate entity from Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. You are actually proving the critic’s point the more you show his speeches.

The fact that you keep leaving out HUGE historical events and facts like the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact and true motives behind Japan’s entry into the Tripartite Pact, not to mention the refusal to join the one pact that was referred to as ‘Axis’, the ‘Pact of Steel’ and the Japanese sense of ultimate betrayal and mistrust of Germany ever since because of not only the Nazi-Soviet Pact but again the invasion of the USSR and finally the fact that despite plans drawn up for war with Russia, the fact you again continually leave out is that it was NOT Japan who violated the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact, but the USSR, and at our prompting no less! The fact that you leave out all these HUGE matters only proves to me that you are either ignorant of said facts or intentionally trying to represent a biased record of the Tripartite Pact. But since we've linked you with various sources proving them to be fact, ignorance must be ruled out anymore, leaving only intentional mis-representation by exclusion I suppose.

I regret to say that I must agree with British historian Jukes assessment of how we(you/wikipedia) continue to hypocritically mis-represent historical fact by his translator’s note for Slavinsky’s book that reveals what we in the West have always claimed covered up by Soviet censorship and propaganda.

Translator’s Note(Geoffrey Jukes) One of the regular charges made against the Soviet Union during the Cold War was that it could not be trusted to observe any treaties that it signed. Instances cited in support of this allegation often centred on its relations with its western neighbours. In the inter-war years it signed non-aggression treaties with them, then in 1939-40 invaded five of them, annexing parts of Poland and Finland, and swallowing Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania whole. But the West’s accusations never touched on one particularly flagrant violation, the declaration of war on 9 August 1945 on an eastern neighbour, Japan, despite the existence of a Neutrality pact between them that was not due to expire until 13 April 1946. The reason why this particular transgression was not cited as evidence of Soviet perfidy is simple. Until the dropping of the two atom bombs the United States and United Kingdom had long been actively soliciting Soviet entry into the war against Japan as the quickest way of bringing Japan to its knees. Moreover, Roosevelt and Churchill underestimated Stalin’s personal ambition to avenge Russia’s defeat in the war of 1904-5, and wooed him more than they need have done.

Befuddler (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Give me 20-30 days

I've been busy doing more important things for the past two months. Give me 20-30 days to respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFX 1 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Most especially if you are the one in control of the article on wikipedia, please obey the talk page guidelines and sign your posts, and properly source all quotes with the page, author and book etc. It's hard to tell who is writing what.
And maybe instead of calling eachother ignorant, it might be more polite to just say someone is 'unread of certain documentation/facts' for instance. Sorry on my part.
But I do understand the frustration and abandonment here when posters do outright quote their sources let alone page, author, publisher and year even(and I do notice whose are more recent publications), and still the original author refuses to admit to error or improving edits. I'm dis-illusioned myself now too.AthabascaCree (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree with Article's Omissions

Rather than repeatedly calling those who disagree with them, (despite sourced evidence to the contrary), as 'ignorant'. We should realise that, like the authors we are using as sources, some here are sincerely going by what information they have on hand at the time. Contrary to what we'd like to believe, we, the victors, are no more immune to propaganda infecting history as anyone else, including our enemies. How about we say someone is maybe 'unread' of certain facts instead?

And I am another who clearly gets the analogy of how I can be actively allied to you(my friend) in one war and not in another despite them going on simultaneously. So I am another who does get the 'present-day Iraq vs Afghanistan alliances analogy.'

Whether it be the books by Meirion and Susie Harris or John Toland, our perceptions of history keep changing with further study and the release of Secrecy Act files of various countries. I think the first major opportunity to reveal our own embarassing propagandas was the 50 year mark from the end of ww2 around 1995 when many(though not all) Secrecy Act sealed diplomatic, intelligence and military records and files are released for study. It takes time for new information to make it to our history books, most especially if it is embarassing to us(the victors). And no-one likes to admit to embarassing facts, loser or winner.

When I tried to look up the book "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact", I found only the far more recent Slavinsky book rather than that used as a source by the original author. We all go by what evidence is available to us at the time. I used to believe most of what was written in this article so far, but then I read the quoted, often more recent books that include those sources used by the original author himself, I've come to change my mind too.

It is true that what you omit can be as misleading as telling an out-right falsehood. It took me weeks, but I got the Juke's-contributed English translation of the recent Russian release from Slavinsky. I've read most of the more recent books sourced here by you guys and have come to change my mind too and disagree with the way the Tripartite Pact is presented here.AthabascaCree (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union's attempts to join the Tripartite Pact

An interesting addition would be the Soviet Union's attempt to join the Tripartite Pact. [25]. Oberiko (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Text removal

This article contains far to much text about the Axis Powers and their relationships. That kind of material is better placed on the Axis Powers page, leaving this one to focus strictly on the pact itself. Things like their racial policies have no bearing here. Oberiko (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's part of the problem, the authors of these articles claim the Tripartite Pact WAS the Axis Pact and that's partly what is being attacked here. All the critics seem to be against this old style propaganda of the victor powers and the seeming official Soviet Union version of history too.
And yes, I definately agree with you how interesting it would be to conjecture how different history would have been had Hitler agreed to Stalin's terms and never betrayed Stalin and it became the Pact of Four as Japan, Italy and even Stalin obviously were in favour of. What a different history that would have faced us with. Interesting point Oberiko.AthabascaCree (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ober; this author denies the Soviets were even entertained let alone invited to join. He even insists Japan's motive was to start war with Russia. You'll find these authors are disappointedly old-fashioned, overly conservative or even pro-Soviet in their accounts here. The term 'cherry-picking' historical facts often used and eventhough, as you can see, critics have offered up sourced proof where the authors sometimes don't, nothing tangible gets corrected here. And if these clarifications and corrections can't be accepted here, they are definately not going to be accepted at the terrible Axis Powers page. For as mentioned, their very claim of the definition of 'Axis Pact' or powers is based on the over-simplistic explanation of this and other pacts and ww2 history.Befuddler (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't have this page on my watchlist. Right now I'm not terribly concerned with the Axis powers page (my plate's pretty full at the moment). What exactly is the problem going on? Oberiko (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you could do about it anyways Oberiko; but its obvious these ww2 articles related are American-Soviet biased and anti-Japanese. I agree with these guys, this stuff is just old propaganda. Where numerous have properly sourced quotes proving the article intentionally misleading historical fact, they are still edited out. Wikipedia is just an American - Soviet propaganda echo. Even I agree blatant anti-Japanese bias. This article on the Tripartite Pact is written not from the perspective and motives and reasoning of the members, but propaganda reports of their enemies. Might as well have your enemy write your biography and call it ethicalDuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Oxford Removes Japan from (the Axis)

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

When we asked Oxford why the change at a teacher's convention, we were told that it was found that there was no authenticated original documentation signed by the Japanese agreeing to the term 'Axis' as title of any activated alliance with Berlin and Rome.

I was also interested to learn that instead of Mussolini, it was actually Italian General Gombos, (who had died in October,1936) who first coined the phrase 'Axis' to refer to a Rome-Berlin alliance. Based on the fact Rome and Berlin sat on the same longitudinal axis on the globe.

When I found supposed documents in English on the web, we've never had a reply to our request for a copy of the original document they translated into English. We keep getting referred to other English documents but none have provided the supposed original documents in their languages signed by Japan, Germany and Italy.

If someone can provide a link to an authenticated copy of a treaty signed by Japan officially named, or renamed 'Axis' actively allying itself to Germany and Italy please provide it. Then I can decide on a debate whether Oxford is wrong. Thank you.DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of our schoolboard, colleagues and interested students, we contacted the ONLY source we've found claiming proof of an actual signed 'Axis Pact' in the 'Avalon Project', through the Yale website for evidence of the 'Axis Pact' they claim to present. It's been months now and no proof has been provided. We suspect you are correct.AthabascaCree (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slovakia and Croatia

The German Wikipedia article tells that Slovak Republic (1939–1945) and Independent State of Croatia also signed the pact. Someone with appropriate sources should do appropriate changes to Tripartite_Pact#Other_signatories if it's true. --Pudeo⺮ 13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Author Refuses to Make Corrections

It's been more than 20-30 days, it's been 4 months now. There's been a great deal of properly sourced research here proving many claims of this article wrong in simply repeating old propaganda.

It's shameful that after all the above research and effort that the unproven even disproven statements in this article, especially as it is being used as a source for the similarily flawed 'Axis' and 'history of Japan' articles, that nothing has been corrected and/or retracted.

I therefore suggest Wikipedia to remove this article since it insists on leaving unproven even disproven.Befuddler (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)