m Signing comment by Erin Vaxx - "→Inclusion of USSR in the infobox: " |
GizzyCatBella (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
::I didn't wanna ref bomb it but I think that can be added as well.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 06:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC) |
::I didn't wanna ref bomb it but I think that can be added as well.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 06:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact. The Polish government, who fled from Poland during the German invasion, tried to push the notion that the Soviet Union acted against the Allies, but the Allies and the international community would have none of it. Churchill himself welcomed the Soviet move, saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail." https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) 07:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact. The Polish government, who fled from Poland during the German invasion, tried to push the notion that the Soviet Union acted against the Allies, but the Allies and the international community would have none of it. Churchill himself welcomed the Soviet move, saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail." https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) 07:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
@[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] - Please do not remove sourced data as you did here <u>twice</u> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002839165&oldid=1002838319&diffmode=source] Thank you. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 07:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Slovakia? == |
== Slovakia? == |
Revision as of 07:48, 26 January 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The Tripartite Pact =/= The Axis
This has been touched on above but I think it needs discussing in more detail here as it is an issue not just for the infobox but for the entire article.
Put simply: we already have an article on the Tripartite pact. If we are treating the Tripartite Pact as synonymous with the Axis then we can simply merge this article into that one. However, the Axis and the Tripartite Pact are not synonymous. Many, many sources show that the Axis is not defined as "countries that signed the Tripartite pact", but is defined more broadly than this, to include all the allies of Germany, Italy, and Japan during WW2. Unfortunately the article as presently written does not reflect this but instead reflects the non-neutral POV that there was a "formal" "de jure" Axis alliance that some countries were in and some weren't, but this isn't what the sources tell us (see above for multiple examples).
I therefore propose to remove all reference to "de jure" membership of the Axis from the article. If a country signed the Tripartite Pact and this is sourced in reliable sources then this should be mentioned. If they signed the Anti-Comintern Pact and this is sourced in reliable sources then this should be mentioned. If they signed what was effectively a military alliance with Germany/Italy/Japan and this is sourced in reliable sources then this should be mentioned. If a country signed a peace treaty saying that they had been a German/Italian/Japanese ally and this is sourced in reliable sources then this should be mentioned. We should not state, in the voice of wiki, that the positions of various wartime governments that they were or were not allies of Germany/Italy/Japan is objective fact if this is in reality a dubious statement that e.g., Allied governments disagreed with - instead it should be discussed in context.
I also propose that the article be re-structured: Tripartite Pact signatories should be collected under one section, Anti-Comintern Pact signatories under another, bi-lateral agreement (e.g., Japanese-Thai etc.) signatories under another, puppet-states under another. This is a more objective arrangement, relying only on what is said in the sources, and not ultimately on a position that is WP:OR (e.g., Thailand was a "co-belligerent" of Japan because ????, Iraq was a "co-belligerent" of the Axis because ????).
An additional issue is that countries are listed for which no source is given. For example, no source is given for Danzig supposedly being a member of the Axis, instead the reader is directed to another article to consider whether the fact that various groups within Danzig fought alongside German troops really is the same as Danzig having been a member of the Axis. All countries for which no reliable source can be found stating that they were an ally of Germany, Italy, or Japan or implying membership of Axis in some other way should be removed. FOARP (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- What do you do with puppet states that were signatories of the tripartite pact? Also again if Tripartite signers are already their own article then why is it still a gold standard for this article presently still post all the edits in recent days? OyMosby (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is easier and more objective to list them as "signer of the Tripartite pact" (one of three important agreements between the Axis countries) but be clear that signing it does not mean that it was not a puppet state and to describe to what extent they were puppet states in the relevant section. That the governments of these countries signed the pact is simple historical fact. Whether, when, and to what extent, they were puppet states, on the other hand, is always up for discussion. For example, Hungary has often been described as a "puppet" after the Nazi-backed coup during 1944 (see, e.g., here: 1 2 3 4), but not so before then. We can expand on the fact that they were basically puppet-states in relevant section.
- At least, this is how I've conceived of handling this issue. I must say it is not easy to come up with objective criteria for inclusion and structuring based on the references. The references differ in their definition of the Axis. For some it is "coalition that fought against the Allies", for others it is "Germany, Japan, and Italy", for others it is "Germany, Italy, Japan, and some other countries" - obviously it is hard to come up with an article structure based on these definitions, as some countries (e.g., Iran) fought the Allies but it is hard to find sources saying that they were allied with the Axis in any way, and "Germany, Italy, Japan and some other countries" begs the question "what other countries?". A minority of sources focus on the Tripartite Pact, but firstly this is a minority view, and secondly if this is the determiner of was "in" and "out" then we can simply merge this into the Tripartite Pact article.
- The structure I've been following is based on the Tim Cooke (and many other references) describing the Tripartite Pact, Anti-Comintern Pact, and Steel Pact as the important agreements between the Axis, and the Raphael Spelman reference's description of puppet states/governments as an extension of the occupier - this gives at least some useful criteria for inclusion (i.e., signatories of the pacts, and also puppet states) and does the least damage to the article as it is. However I'm sure there are other way of structuring this and we should have a full discussion of them FOARP (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I’m a bit confused, you say that A minority of sources focus on the Tripartite Pact as Axis and then that many sources intact do? Which is it? I’m having a bit of a hard time following you. If all associated or that collaborated with or under the three main powers, should they all be in then infobox as well? This was a whole discussion weeks ago above. I agree with though that different versions or splits of the articles could be proposed and discussed. OyMosby (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies for being unclear. A minority of sources simply say that the Tripartite Pact and the Axis are the same thing. More sources describe the Axis as being a loose coalition formed of multiple different agreements, with the Tripartite Pact just being one of them. Signing the Tripartite pact was important, but the Axis existed before the pact was signed, and countries generally considered to be part of the Axis didn't sign it. FOARP (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I’m a bit confused, you say that A minority of sources focus on the Tripartite Pact as Axis and then that many sources intact do? Which is it? I’m having a bit of a hard time following you. If all associated or that collaborated with or under the three main powers, should they all be in then infobox as well? This was a whole discussion weeks ago above. I agree with though that different versions or splits of the articles could be proposed and discussed. OyMosby (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- What do you do with puppet states that were signatories of the tripartite pact? Also again if Tripartite signers are already their own article then why is it still a gold standard for this article presently still post all the edits in recent days? OyMosby (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Too Long
I agree with Hohum that the article is obviously too long. For reference it's about twice as long as the article on the Allies (which includes more countries). I also agree with KIENGIR that we shouldn't cut important aspects of the article in order to get down to an arbitrary figure.
Too much of this article is simply a general history of WW2 and doesn't focus sufficiently on the actual topic, which is the Axis powers. For example we don't clearly describe what "The Axis" actually was in any real detail - the idea simply seems to be that if we just write enough of the history of WW2 then people will understand what they were, but I think this is a poor way of doing things. Additionally, we all know that for some of the countries included on this page the membership of the Axis is disputed (e.g., Thailand - was it a member of the Axis? occupied by the Axis? a puppet state?) and we really do need to go into depth on who it is that says they were members of the Axis and on what grounds they base this, and who it is that says they weren't allies of the Axis and why they say this - and we have to provide REFERENCES. The groupings on the page need to be based on objective criteria - I don't think simply describing all the countries that didn't sign the Tripartite Pact as "co-belligerents" does this since in some cases using the term "co-belligerent" means adopting the position of those who say that they WEREN'T an ally of the Axis.
My suggestion is to start cutting down on the general history of the war (e.g., a lot of the wall-of-text content under Germany, Italy, Japan that is unrelated to the relationship between them) and cut the unreferenced material as well (e.g., all the countries above for which no references are provided or can be found). "Colonies" might also be somewhere to look - for example the various German Reichskommissariats can probably be summarised in a single sentence.
7645ERB, Britmax, Hohum, KIENGIR, (Edit: Peacemaker67) - I think you folks know this page fairly well, what do you think? FOARP (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- FOARP,
- I think your corroboration edits were useful, and you already went forward by shortening. It's ok. However, what I have opposed to be removed, it's clear (you've just put them in order...).(KIENGIR (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC))
- There is a lot of "topic adjacent" information, instead of directly relevant information. I think FOARP covers the issues well. (Hohum @) 10:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Glad you guys like the proposal, though I'd be happy to get some push-back as well if anyone can think of a better way of organising things. I think particularly we've got to look at the times when people have come on here and said "why isn't X mentioned?" when actually X is mentioned somewhere in one of the wall-of-text parts of the article, as an indicator that at present this article is hard to read and people just can't find useful information in it. This is way more important than the infobox.
- Personally I think that an article of this level of importance should definitely be GA-standard and it's a great pity that it isn't right now. Getting it to GA will take a lot of work, obviously, but I think it is something that has to be done. FOARP (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @FOARP: You made a point earlier that if we are to talk about all the axis collaborators, puppets, co-belligerents, etc, then the title of the article shouldn’t be “Axis Powers” as not all members were powers. It equalizes the abilities, culpabilities and level of power of them all which is not npov. Perhaps the article should be “Axis coalition”? The infobox should include all collaborators as well as it used to. Being that is the discussion of the article.
- You had stated “ I could go on but I feel the point is proved already - distinguishing between Axis countries based on whether they were in the Tripartite pact or not is not supported by the majority of references. It is probably fairer to say it is a minority view.”
- Also you had mentioned to me “ OyMosby Agreed. One additional point - this article obviously goes beyond the Tripartite Pact signatories, because there already is an article about the Tripartite Pact and its signatories. There is no need for us to duplicate that content here” but isn’t that what is still happening with this article?OyMosby (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- OyMosby - I think the excessive amount of stuff about the Tripartite Pact is a good point to raise, since there is a lot of detail of the history of the Tripartite Pact per se that could probably be trimmed as it is already discussed on that page. Thus far we've concentrated on cutting down on "general history of WW2" content (e.g., listing the exact weapons systems that Romania manufactured, listing that Adolf Hitler denied a bunch of stuff that he actually wanted) but this is another area that could do with a trim. We're now getting closer to where we need to be in terms of readable prose - I think the next step is to add in a lot more referencing (and cut what isn't referenced), particularly for the more minor countries that have poor/non-existent referencing and don't really explain in some cases why they are on this page.
- In terms of an RM discussion to "Axis coalition" or (my preference, though I think it might get rejected based on the MoS) "The Axis" this is a discussion we need to have at some point. You're right that "Axis powers" adopts the POV that every country listed here is an "Axis Power", but a lot of sources limit that to just Germany, Japan, and Italy (this is probably actually the majority view in reliable sources).
- Romania is an instructive case - some (probably a minority) of sources here discuss it as an "Axis power" or "Minor Axis power". Others (probably a majority) discuss it simply as part of "The Axis" during the invasion of the USSR.
- Alternatively we could split this page into simply content on the relations between the big three Axis Powers and a new article on "The Axis" or "Axis coalition" (or whatever the name chosen would be). FOARP (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- PS - regarding a rename discussion, some interesting stats on GBooks hits: "Axis Powers" - 667 hits, "Axis Alliance" - 437 hits, "Axis Countries" - 562 hits, "Axis Coalition" - 356 hits, "The Axis" AND "World War" (I added "world war" to exclude references to e.g., mathematics) - 708. "Axis powers" is a commonly used term BUT often just used for Italy, Germany, and Japan, "Axis countries" is almost as common but typically includes other axis members. "The Axis" is probably the most commonly used term but would fail the WP:TITLEFORMAT since we're not supposed to use "The" at the start of the title - though I think this case is similar to the "The Crown" exception so maybe we can get away with it? Frankly I can see "Axis Alliance", "Axis Coalition", or "Axis Countries" as other viable alternatives that are all better than the present title per WP:CRITERIA. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- No support for article name change, Axis powers does not imply what is assumed, neither Allied Powers, it's a collective term.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC))
- The title doesn't determine the scope. I don't support a move to a less common name, let's retain the current title, make the focus of the article the three powers and have a section about the countries that were aligned with them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I can see this your point of view, and there's a chance that splitting the article would be basically a WP:POVFORK as well. KIENGIR - looking at the sources some of them definitely do describe "the Axis powers" as being basically Germany, Italy, and Japan (e.g., the Merriam-Webster definition, here, here, here) so this is not simply me implying that "Axis Powers" means this. Notably Peacemaker67 also appears to adopt this definition by highlighting Germany, Italy, and Japan as the "Axis powers" and the other countries as being ones that had relationship with the Axis Powers (though apologies if I have misunderstood your position). It is also true that other sources do not (e.g., Lemkin's book on Occupations in Europe on p.3 lists the "Axis powers" occupying territory in Europe as Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, and states in a footnote that Finland is not included as they are not occupying significant territory - obviously Lemkin thought the "Axis Powers" included more than just Germany, Italy, and Japan).
- To be honest, though, I am less bothered by the title specifically than I am by the actual definition of what this page is supposed to cover. It cannot be simply the Tripartite Pact and its members, that's clear - otherwise we would just merge this page into Tripartite Pact. Defining it as a looser coalition including countries that signed the TP, the ACP, the Pact of Steel, and other treaties and informal alliances is better (and there are sources that support this approach - e.g., the Tim Cooke ref and others) though it means we're stuck with a situation where a lot of the countries on the list with disputed membership of the "Axis powers" - I think this is a situation we're stuck with as, since the Axis powers were the "bad guys" lots of people want to claim they weren't aligned with them, that's just history. You will definitely get people claiming that country X was in the Axis but wasn't an "Axis power" though, because some sources do use the term in this sense. FOARP (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I only wanted to say it is irrelevant which member how much power had indeed. Irrelevant, collective term, they are in one supportive branch. Peacemaker67 also did not support the title change. Btw., I don't claim for any was not member of the Axis, on the other hand I don't like if obvious facts tried to be explained out.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC))
- I suggest we work our way through each questionable country here in separate threads, identifying the academic consensus for each as being part of the Axis powers or allied with the Axis and tick each one off as we go. Frankly, the main three are obviously included, as are any country that signed the Tripartite Pact. BTW, this thread is wandering off the original purpose, and a new thread should have been started about this issue. It is far better for all concerned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I only wanted to say it is irrelevant which member how much power had indeed. Irrelevant, collective term, they are in one supportive branch. Peacemaker67 also did not support the title change. Btw., I don't claim for any was not member of the Axis, on the other hand I don't like if obvious facts tried to be explained out.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC))
- The title doesn't determine the scope. I don't support a move to a less common name, let's retain the current title, make the focus of the article the three powers and have a section about the countries that were aligned with them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- No support for article name change, Axis powers does not imply what is assumed, neither Allied Powers, it's a collective term.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC))
- There is a lot of "topic adjacent" information, instead of directly relevant information. I think FOARP covers the issues well. (Hohum @) 10:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Status of Vichy France
Some sources, including this legal study of the law of co-belligerency, consider Vichy France a co-belligerent on the Axis side. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Then its fine to have it there then.Isabella Emma (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Have cited it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Havsjö and Beyond My Ken: Vichy France waged war against Britain (which is co-belligerence with the Axis), but I am inclined to agree with removal from the infobox. Srnec (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- If they were a co-belligerent, why remove it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Because "co-belligerence" alone is a low bar? Finland and Germany fought side by side. Japan and Thailand fought side by side invading Burma. The Soviets and the Germans simultaneously invaded Poland. Germany and Italy even provided air support to Iraq. But Vichy France received less support that Iraq and unlike Iraq was technically in a state of war with Germany. (Unless I'm misremembering something.) Vichy France was not treated like post-armistice Italy, Romania and Bulgaria were by the Allies. It meets only the barest definition of a co-belligerent: "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy". But I don't have a strong opinion on the infobox provided it isn't outright false. Srnec (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- We say what the reliable sources say, we don't decide based on what level you (or I) personally think the bar is set at. We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick. Certainly no-one who wants to avoid being blocked will continue to delete reliable academic sources that disagree with their personal view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't remove any sourced information, nor did I question the source you quoted. Drop the attitude. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Vichy France was most certainly not in the state of war with Germany. An armistice is less than a full fledged peace treaty but it can end state of war as well. Vichy France was most certainly an ally or a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany. Volunteer Marek 05:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't remove any sourced information, nor did I question the source you quoted. Drop the attitude. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- We say what the reliable sources say, we don't decide based on what level you (or I) personally think the bar is set at. We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick. Certainly no-one who wants to avoid being blocked will continue to delete reliable academic sources that disagree with their personal view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Because "co-belligerence" alone is a low bar? Finland and Germany fought side by side. Japan and Thailand fought side by side invading Burma. The Soviets and the Germans simultaneously invaded Poland. Germany and Italy even provided air support to Iraq. But Vichy France received less support that Iraq and unlike Iraq was technically in a state of war with Germany. (Unless I'm misremembering something.) Vichy France was not treated like post-armistice Italy, Romania and Bulgaria were by the Allies. It meets only the barest definition of a co-belligerent: "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy". But I don't have a strong opinion on the infobox provided it isn't outright false. Srnec (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Inclusion of USSR in the infobox
USSR was already present (I don't have time to check who added it), so I expanded the note [1]. This was challenged [2]. I concur USSR was never recognized as an Axis power, but per quote added [3] it acted as an important German ally in the early years. I think it is more reasonable to include it in the 'Co-belligerent' list but this was challenged as well ([4]) with a request for an explicit citation. Well, the source explicitly states it was an ally so... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC) PS. Here's a reliable (academic journal) source that uses the term co-belligerent in the relevant context: [5] "The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Source says: "It is worth clarifying that the Nazi-Soviet Pact was not an alliance as such, it was a treaty of non-aggression". Short term arrangement with Germany is not the same as entire Axis.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes but it also says "Hitler and Stalin were allies in all but name" - in other words, Moorehouse is saying that it wasn't an "alliance" on paper but that is what it was indeed. Volunteer Marek 09:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- This [6] also uses the term "Nazi-Soviet alliance" and that's from a historian pretty sympathetic to SU under Stalin. Volunteer Marek 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- And here (political scientist). Volunteer Marek 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Here, pages 116-7, 156-158. Volunteer Marek 09:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- And here (historian). Volunteer Marek 09:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- And here (also historian). Volunteer Marek 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- And here (professor of Holocaust Studies). Volunteer Marek 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This source [7] refers to them as "co-belligerents", 2nd page. Here's the text: "As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17". Volunteer Marek 08:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Volunteer Marek, Thanks, particularly for the second RS for co-belligerent. I think it is a better term than an ally, technically, and I'd support just moving USSR to the co-belligerent section, that mas my initial intention anyway. The term 'ally' is IMHO both less correct and more controversial (but since it is a common term it is more widely used than the technical term co-belligerent). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Those sources are in a minotrity, and discuss Nazi-Soviet relations and not the Axis Powers. Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent. Both make the opposite point, that the Axis was opposed to the Soviet Union, communism, and the Comintern from 1936.--Astral Leap (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- This info has been in article for many many years so you need WP:CONSENSUS to remove it. Second, please show that "these sources are in the minority". Above I listed prominent historians, political scientists and Holocaust scholars who say otherwise. Third, obviously at various points the Axis was opposed to SU etc., which is what these sources say. However, during 1939-1941 they were allies and co-belligerents.
- I should also mention that if someone reverts with an edit summary that says "discussion is ongoing" [8] THE LEAST they can do is to actually... bother participating in the discussion before blind reverting. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- In an alliance, the citizens of the two countries know about the connection. The explicit agreement to cooperate is widely known. The USSR and Germany did not have this arrangement. The historians who are comparing the division of Poland to an alliance are using hyperbole. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Um, I'm not sure where you're getting this from - sounds like your own original research - but "citizens of the two countries know about the connection" is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be an "alliance". In fact it has nothing to do with it and I've never seen a source define it this way. I have seen however, and provided above, numerous sources which refer to it as an "alliance". The fact that you think "historians are (...) using hyperbole" is neither here nor there. We go with sources not with whether some editor thinks those sources are wrong. Volunteer Marek 00:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously, the secret codicil to divide Poland between them complicates assessing the nature of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Without it, it's simply a non-aggression pact, similar to the one which Nazi Germany had with Poland, and we would not list Poland as an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis Powers on that basis. With the codicil, the agreement has at least one aspect that is alliance-like. However, as the quote provided by Piotrus quite clearly says, as close as it might have come to being one (which really wasn't very close at all) it was not an alliance, it was essentially an agreement to look the other way while each party took the part of Poland that had been agreed to. To me, that does not qualify the Soviet Union as either an ally or a co-belligerent.I'd make the comparison with Roosevelt's dealings with the UK prior to Pearl Harbor. He took the US as close as possible to being an ally or co-belligerent as a neutral power could do, and historians all, make note of that, but none go so far as to call the US an ally or co-belligerent of the UK until after Germany declared war on the US and the US responded in kind.History is hardly ever clean and clear-cut, and it's up to historians to make evaluations of the nature of things based on the evidence presented. I haven't looked at the cites Volunteer Marek has presented above, but I have no doubt that they say what VM says they do, however the consensus of historians do not agree that the USSR was ever an ally of Nazi Germany, nor a co-belligerent, and some carefully selected citations does not change that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Again, let's leave original research out of this please (no, the agreement was not similar to the one with Poland). Likewise, the comparisons with UK and US are original research. Did US invade Germany when it went to war with UK in 1939? No. If IT HAD we would most certainly call US an ally or a co-belligerent in 1939. This is a false analogy, again. We go with sources. And what the source quoted by Piotrus says is that while it wasn't an alliance on paper, in practice it very much was. Additionally we have numerous other sources which refer to this as an alliance or to SU as "co-belligerents". You are asserting that "consensus of historians" doesn't agree with the sources I presented but you haven't actually provided any sources of your own (ones which say "no, it wasn't an alliance"). If you wish to make this argument then you need to provide sources of your own, not just blithely dismiss the ones I provided (since they are RS). EVEN THEN - if you did provide such sources - we would obviously have to list both views. But right now, only one view has sources for support and it's the "allies/co-belligerents" one. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- You've mistaken a talk page discussion for a Wikipedia article. In Wikipedia articles, only material supported by citations from reliable sources are acceptable, but a talk page consensus discussion is a different animal altogether. It is perfectly legitimate to use analogies and other rhetorical devices to attempt to convince others of the validity of one's point. For myself, a good coherent argument is certainly to be preferred over a handful of cherry-picked citations which do notaccurately represent the consensus of experts on the subject, and a misinterpretation of a quote which says, point blank, that it was not an alliance, and that Germany and the Soviet Union were not allies, to mean that they were allies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, The quote clearly says they were not legally allies but acted like allies and were allies in all but a name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- BMK, no, I'm sorry but that's not how this works. The talk page is NOT a place to post your own personal original research and on that basis decide what article content should be. We follow sources. The talk page is for providing sources which support your view. You have not done that AT ALL. You've only asserted, without basis, that the sources *I* provided "do not represent consensus of experts". How do we know they don't? Because you said so? Sorry, not good enough. Provide sources to back that up. Otherwise Wikipedia policy says we follow the sources we do have. Volunteer Marek 05:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- You've mistaken a talk page discussion for a Wikipedia article. In Wikipedia articles, only material supported by citations from reliable sources are acceptable, but a talk page consensus discussion is a different animal altogether. It is perfectly legitimate to use analogies and other rhetorical devices to attempt to convince others of the validity of one's point. For myself, a good coherent argument is certainly to be preferred over a handful of cherry-picked citations which do notaccurately represent the consensus of experts on the subject, and a misinterpretation of a quote which says, point blank, that it was not an alliance, and that Germany and the Soviet Union were not allies, to mean that they were allies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, First, I concur that the case for co-belligerence is much stronger than for the alliance. Second, we have presented two reliable academic sources that explicitly describe USSR as a co-belligerent. This is what you asked for in the edit summary here: [9]. Now that the sources saying this have been presented, are you raising the bar higher? And with what? Do you have any RS that say USSR should not be considered a co-belligerent? We have two sources for and zero against such a description. I think the reasonable compromise is to describe USSR as a co-belligerent for the period 1939-1941 (and not as an ally). Lastly, common sense can be invoked. Definition of co-belligerence is "the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy with or without a formal treaty of military alliance." Soviet Union invaded Poland and fought a number of battles against Polish military. What else would you call it if not co-belligerence? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC) PS. I would like to quote User:Peacemaker67 who in a section right above (concerning the term co-belligerence being used for Vichy) said "We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick." How is this case any different? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- She article is about the Axis Powers, not about Nazi Germany. So, if the cites presented call the USSR a "co-belligerent" with the Axis Powers (which you'll remember did not fight in the invasion of Poland), then go ahead and add them to the infobox, but if they only say that the USSR was (briefly) a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany only for the invasion of Poland. Since the infobox is supposed to be a precis of facts presented in the article, add to the article that because of such-and-such, so-and-so and so-and-so classify the USSR as a co-belligerent with the Axis Powers. But, again, if only to Nazi Germany, it's not germane to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, Are you saying Nazi Germany was not an Axis Power? Or that the Axis Power did not exist in September 1939? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- She article is about the Axis Powers, not about Nazi Germany. So, if the cites presented call the USSR a "co-belligerent" with the Axis Powers (which you'll remember did not fight in the invasion of Poland), then go ahead and add them to the infobox, but if they only say that the USSR was (briefly) a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany only for the invasion of Poland. Since the infobox is supposed to be a precis of facts presented in the article, add to the article that because of such-and-such, so-and-so and so-and-so classify the USSR as a co-belligerent with the Axis Powers. But, again, if only to Nazi Germany, it's not germane to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Again, let's leave original research out of this please (no, the agreement was not similar to the one with Poland). Likewise, the comparisons with UK and US are original research. Did US invade Germany when it went to war with UK in 1939? No. If IT HAD we would most certainly call US an ally or a co-belligerent in 1939. This is a false analogy, again. We go with sources. And what the source quoted by Piotrus says is that while it wasn't an alliance on paper, in practice it very much was. Additionally we have numerous other sources which refer to this as an alliance or to SU as "co-belligerents". You are asserting that "consensus of historians" doesn't agree with the sources I presented but you haven't actually provided any sources of your own (ones which say "no, it wasn't an alliance"). If you wish to make this argument then you need to provide sources of your own, not just blithely dismiss the ones I provided (since they are RS). EVEN THEN - if you did provide such sources - we would obviously have to list both views. But right now, only one view has sources for support and it's the "allies/co-belligerents" one. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to also remind everyone that this info was in the article for YEARS. Piotrus tried to offer a clarification, BMK reverted him and then proceeded to completely remove the info altogether. In absence of consensus we go back to what the original version was until the dispute is resolved. Volunteer Marek 05:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. Since the lasted revert [10] mentioned lack of references, here they are: 1) Hager, Robert P. (2017-03-01). ""The laughing third man in a fight": Stalin's use of the wedge strategy". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 50 (1): 15–27. doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002. ISSN 0967-067X.
The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland
2) Blobaum, Robert (1990). "The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41". Problems of Communism. 39: 106.As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17
. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC) - Volunteer Marek, Regarding adding sources [11] (which I think is a good practice, of course) may I suggest adding relevant quotations? I provided two relevant in my previous post just above. Also, I wonder - you added Hager (2017) but not Blobaum (1990)? Any reason for the omission? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't wanna ref bomb it but I think that can be added as well. Volunteer Marek 06:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact. The Polish government, who fled from Poland during the German invasion, tried to push the notion that the Soviet Union acted against the Allies, but the Allies and the international community would have none of it. Churchill himself welcomed the Soviet move, saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail." https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Erin Vaxx - Please do not remove sourced data as you did here twice [12] Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Slovakia?
Slovakia was a puppet state so it could be put in a separate category. Hawkillglu (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hawkillglu, Which category? Are you talking about the infobox? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact
While we're here, it probably should be mentioned in the article that the Soviet Union agreed (provisionally) to join the Tripartite Pact in November 1940. Stalin asked for a naval base on the Bosporus (and some other stuff) and Nazi Germany decided that it wasn't worth it so went with Barbarossa instead. Volunteer Marek 06:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)