Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 301: | Line 301: | ||
I asked for Temporary extended confirmed protection to prevent what appears orchestrated edit wars and trolling by new accounts and VPN-generated IPs. - <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> 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC) |
I asked for Temporary extended confirmed protection to prevent what appears orchestrated edit wars and trolling by new accounts and VPN-generated IPs. - <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> 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:I concur this would be useful ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&oldid=prev&diff=1002925818&diffmode=source] and others). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
:I concur this would be useful ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&oldid=prev&diff=1002925818&diffmode=source] and others). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
==Infobox== |
|||
I have a feeling that the above infobox discussion(s) is being conducted in a totally disorganized manner ("My source says X, so we should include it into the infobox" - "No, my source says Y, so we should not include your statement in the infobox", etc). |
|||
In reality, this discussion should be a two-step process. First, we should achieve some consensus about general criteria of inclusion/exclusion of some information into the infobox. Second, we must apply these criteria to all items. |
|||
As a first step, I propose to discuss criteria of co-belligerence. I think, keeping in mind that WWII was a large scale and global conflict, this threshold should be high, so small scale military incidents and/or the incidents that didn't lead to war declaration should not be included (otherwise a reader may be confused). Do you have any comments on that?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:11, 27 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)
- Vichy France was most certainly in a state of war with Germany (and Italy). That is how contemporaries saw it. That is why French POWs remained POWs. The same thing applies, inter alia, to Italy and the Allies after 1943. (Citations can be provided.) The armistice does not end the state of war, just the shooting. I do not deny that Vichy France was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany in the technical sense, only that its active belligerence was minimally coordinated with that of the other Axis powers, far less so than any of the other co-belligerents listed (even the USSR and Iraq). Or is there some act of belligerence I'm missing? Srnec (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Srnec, I think you are right, but where do we draw the line? We can agree it was less co-belligerent than USSR (until the invasion of USSR at least) but see how much opposition is there to the listing of USSR below. I think the line should be simply based on what RS say. If they say France was co-belligerent, and if there is no description of such viewpoint as fringe, then we just report what the sources say. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Vichy France was most certainly in a state of war with Germany (and Italy). That is how contemporaries saw it. That is why French POWs remained POWs. The same thing applies, inter alia, to Italy and the Allies after 1943. (Citations can be provided.) The armistice does not end the state of war, just the shooting. I do not deny that Vichy France was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany in the technical sense, only that its active belligerence was minimally coordinated with that of the other Axis powers, far less so than any of the other co-belligerents listed (even the USSR and Iraq). Or is there some act of belligerence I'm missing? Srnec (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2021 (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)
- No, I am saying that although Nazi Germany was at the core of the Axis, it's not necessarily that case that a country with X relationship with Nazi Germany had X relationship with the Axis Powers. Of course, any country which fought side-by-side with the Axis against the Allies should be examined for consideration as being an Axis Power, but even that doesn't necessarily make it the case. Finland, for instance, is almost never considered to be an Axis Power, although its status here as a co-belligerent is a reasonable conclusion. The same for Vichy France, if a bit less obviously. The thing is that these relationships are hardly ever black and white. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I don't follow how you can be ok with including Finland here but not USSR. What is the difference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Finland fought for years against an ally, the Soviet Union, with German assistance. German troops were on Finnish soil, participating in the war.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I don't follow how you can be ok with including Finland here but not USSR. What is the difference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, I am saying that although Nazi Germany was at the core of the Axis, it's not necessarily that case that a country with X relationship with Nazi Germany had X relationship with the Axis Powers. Of course, any country which fought side-by-side with the Axis against the Allies should be examined for consideration as being an Axis Power, but even that doesn't necessarily make it the case. Finland, for instance, is almost never considered to be an Axis Power, although its status here as a co-belligerent is a reasonable conclusion. The same for Vichy France, if a bit less obviously. The thing is that these relationships are hardly ever black and white. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 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)
- WP:V is quite clear that any unsourced material in a Wikipedia artifcle can be removed at will, regardless of how long it's been in the article. The information I removed was "referenced" only by a "see" pointer to another Wikipedia article, and WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so, in other words, it was never referenced at all, and should have been removed ages ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes but this is moot since multiple sources HAVE BEEN provided. Volunteer Marek 14:17, 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)
- IT is perfectly legitimate to remove material which is sourced with citations which do not directly support the claims being made, and that is the case here. To include the USSR as an "Axis Power", one needs a citation which says explicitly that "'he USSR was an Axis power". To say that the USSR was a "co-belligerent" with the Axis powers, a source which says specifically that the USSR "was a co-belligerent with the Axis powers", and so on. Citations cannot make some vaguely related claim, they must say exactly what is being claimed in the article. This is really basic Wikipedia stuff, which you and VM and Piotrus know like the backs of your hands, so please please stop castigating other editors for following basic Wikipedia policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh. BMK, NO ONE IS SAYING USSR WAS AN AXIS POWER!!! Please stop it with the false strawman. The USSR is being is listed as a "co-belligerent" Just like Finland, Vichy France etc. which were also NOT Axis Powers. The sources have been provided.
- This is extremely frustrating.
- First long standing info is removed. When someone restores it, it's reverted again with edit summaries which claim that this is new info.
- Then the info is removed again under the pretense of no sources. When it's restored with sources it's removed anyway.
- When the sources are provided to directly support the text, it is then falsely claimed that... no sources have been provided.
- It's hard to see how this is constructive. How exactly are we suppose to resolve a dispute with this kind of argumentation?
- Let's keep the article at the state it's been in, except now with the info properly sourced and finish the discussion here first. Volunteer Marek 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken - German–Soviet Axis talks - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, It's splitting hair. Nazi Germany was an Axis Power. We have sources that say USSR was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany. It's simple logic that a co-belligerent of a country A that belongs to an grouping (alliance?) B makes said co-belligerent also co-belligerent to that other grouping. Or think about it the other way. Poland was an Ally, right? Who fought Allies in WWII?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- ^^^^ Original research ^^^^^. When the Soviet Union entered Poland on 17 September, the Polish military and government were in a state of collapse, not much fighting. The allies did not recognize this as an act of war against the alliance. Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, it’s not. As already pointed out Britannica and USHMM are TERTIARY sources (whose target audience is school children so it’s unsurprising they simplify and omit some info), here we use SECONDARY sources which explicitly call Soviet Union “allies” and “co-belligerents” of Nazi Germany in 1939-1941. Volunteer Marek 13:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- ^^^^ Original research ^^^^^. When the Soviet Union entered Poland on 17 September, the Polish military and government were in a state of collapse, not much fighting. The allies did not recognize this as an act of war against the alliance. Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus and Volunteer Marek: The terms "Axis" and "Allies" refer to specific groups (or blocks) of countries that fought each other to the end of the war, and AFAIK the USSR is only ever considered part of the latter. If we're to claim otherwise we need sources that state so explicitly; the USSR's cooperation with Nazi Germany at the beginning of the war is not enough to establish that association, and would indeed constitute WP:OR. François Robere (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- One more time, no one is saying that USSR was part of the Axis. Quit it with the strawman already. The text is about USSR being a "co-belligerent" or an ally of Nazi Germany. Volunteer Marek 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that in this entire discussion myself and Piotrus are the ONLY editors to have actually bothered to provide sources. Everyone else opposing this is just posting their own personal feelings and original research on the matter.
Folks, you need to provide sources. That's how Wikipedia works. If you can't provide actual sources to support your position then you're just wasting talk page space. The talk page that right at the top says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."
Sources please. Volunteer Marek 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Both Astral Leap (
Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power... Both make the opposite point...
) and Erin Vaxx (Carlton's Churchill and the Soviet Union) cite sources. I'll add Weinberg's World at Arms, which explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's The Second World War, which gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; The Routledge atlas of the Second World War (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders... etc. Now can we lay this to rest? François Robere (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)- Both Astral Leap and Erin Voxx (especially that one) are new accounts which jumped right into controversial topics. Neither of them have cited sources to support their point of view. They mentioned sources which ... don't say anything either way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I show you a source which says "X is true" and you come back to me and show me a source which ... doesn't say anything about X either way, then that does not mean that X is not true. Obviously.
- Find a source which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies or co-belligerents between 1939 and 1941.
- And now we have a whole freakin' brigade of sockpuppets on this article.
- Volunteer Marek 18:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've actually checked Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica), and they both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source, albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same. My contributed sources (Weinberg, Snyder and Gilbert) are also explicit on this.
- I would gladly find you a source
which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies
, but you already had me inabsence of evidence is not evidence of absence
. François Robere (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)- Again, no one's disputing that USSR and US/UK were Allies after 1941. Question is about 1939-1941 as anyone who even glances at this discussion should be able to figure out. Stop it with the strawman. Volunteer Marek 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- And please, by all means, find me that source. I've been asking for it repeatedly so it's about someone actually tried. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- VM, your question (if I understand it correctly) is incorrectly formulated. Noone has to provide a source saying USSR was not Nazi Germany's ally. Moreover, even if such a source would be provided, that cannot be an ultimate proof that it was not, because such a source may represent a minority viewpoint. A correct approach would be to determine how 1939-41 Soviet-Nazi relations are described in majority sources. To do that, let's try the approach proposed by me. This approach is as follows: using different sets of neutrally selected keywords, find sources on that subject, and then check which sources are cited by those sources. Based on the information found in those sources, new search phrases are formulated, and the procedure repeated. If this iterative process repeatedly yields the same set of sources, we can conclude that the procedure has converged, so we identified a set of sources that represent a majority viewpoint (or a set of significant minority viewpoints).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, because your reasoning implies that “if not every source says X then X is not true”. You will have some sources which simplify. You will have other sources which focus on some other aspect of the topic. You can’t expect all or even most sources to say X. At the end of the day you can only look at whether sources say “X” or “not X”. And right now all we have is sources which say X where X=USSR and Nazi Germany were allies in 1939-1941. Volunteer Marek 07:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I concur we don't need sources to prove the negative. But we have sources that say the Soviet Union was a Nazi ally (or co-belligerent) and no sources to dispute them. To be clear, nobody is disputing USSR status as an Ally and part of the Big Three. But there is no contradiction in being in both camps, changing sides. Well, just to be clear, nobody is also arguing USSR was part of the Axis. Co-belligerence (or being an ally) of a group is not the same as being a part of the group, and we have a section here called co-belligerence. Why shouldn't USSR be in it? They co-invaded Poland (an Ally) together with Nazi Germany and this led to many scholars calling them an ally or co-belligerent of Nazi Germay. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Piotrus, we are not proving a logical syllogism here. We are simply trying to figure out what sources say. The question “were Nazi Germany and USSR allies in 1939-1941” is pretty straight forward and of obvious academic interest to historians. If it’s controversial then you would naturally expect some sources to say “yes they were” and some to say “no they weren’t” and some to not address the question at all (cuz they focus on something else). But here we actually only have sources which say “yes they were” and some which don’t address the question. To draw the conclusion from that that they weren’t, when No sources which say “no they weren’t” have been provided is kind of absurd. Volunteer Marek 07:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would say there are three groups of sources: (i) the sources that describe Nazi-Soviet relationship as a de facto military alliance; (ii) the sources that apply the word "alliance"/"ally" in its colloquial meaning (i.e. they say Nazi-Soviet relationships were relatively frendly, but they do not say it was a real military alliance), and (iii) the sources saying otherwise. The fact that the group (iii) do not dispute with group (i) sources may mean that the (iii) group sources represent a fringe viewpoint, or that they represent majority/mainstream views. Based on the information available to me, I conclude the second explanation is the most plausible. However, I propose to clarify that question by doing a joint literature search.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Paul Siebert, I am not sure how this can be done quantitatively. Why don't you reply to my earlier queries about how can we justify the Soviet invasion of Poland as not fitting into the plain English definition of co-belligerence? We have RS for this being described and such and it fits the definition to a letter. What do we need a literature review for? To prove this is not a fringe view? That again seems like a request to prove the negative. Which reliable sources say it is a fringe view? If not, it's sufficient we have sources for co-belligerence. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- VM, your question (if I understand it correctly) is incorrectly formulated. Noone has to provide a source saying USSR was not Nazi Germany's ally. Moreover, even if such a source would be provided, that cannot be an ultimate proof that it was not, because such a source may represent a minority viewpoint. A correct approach would be to determine how 1939-41 Soviet-Nazi relations are described in majority sources. To do that, let's try the approach proposed by me. This approach is as follows: using different sets of neutrally selected keywords, find sources on that subject, and then check which sources are cited by those sources. Based on the information found in those sources, new search phrases are formulated, and the procedure repeated. If this iterative process repeatedly yields the same set of sources, we can conclude that the procedure has converged, so we identified a set of sources that represent a majority viewpoint (or a set of significant minority viewpoints).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am opposed to removing the USSR from the infobox so long as we insist on subdividing it and including a "co-belligerents" section. I would have no problem removing the USSR, Iraq and Vichy France and simply collapsing the remaining states into a single undivided list. But everybody seems to prefer their lists divided. And Finnish propaganda. Srnec (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I always thought Vichy France was a neutral state, and all her military incidents with the Allies were a result of non-provoked attacks by the Allied forces. I am not familiar with Iraq history, so I have no opinion about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven:
Weinberg's World at Arms... explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's The Second World War... gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; The Routledge atlas of the Second World War (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders.
;Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica)... both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source (Churchill, as quoted in Carlton's Churchill and the Soviet Union -FR), albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same.
You can see more from Gilbert and Davies in the thread below. François Robere (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)- Can you provide an actual quote from Weinberg (page numbers etc)? Because what I see him saying is the following:
- "The French government was understandably shaken and disappointed about the Soviet Union aligning herself with Germany
- Also calls Soviet Union an ally of Nazi Germany on page 54.
- Also calls the fall of Poland in 1939 a "joint victory" of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union (page 57)
- Also spends several pages discussing the economic, intelligence and military support the Soviet Union provided to Nazi Germany in 1939 and 1940
- Also states that the reason Soviet Union did not end up joining the Tripartite Pact is because Germany (not USSR) aborted the negotiations.
- Also states that Soviet Union would have "preferred" to join the Tripartite Pact if Germany had agreed to it (pg 249)
- Also states that the Soviet Union trying its best to join the Tripartite Pact in 1940 was a "serious offer" (pg 201)
- Also states that the Soviet Union made "massive economic offers" to Nazi Germany to persuade it to let them join the Axis (ditto)
- Also states that the Soviet Union agreed to commit to fight alongside Nazi Germany in any potential war with Nazi Germany.
- So can you provide a quote which says that the USSR was NOT allied with Nazis Germany in 1939-1940, because everything I see in this source actually says the opposite! Volunteer Marek 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- So actually it seems Weinberg calls it an alliance too!
- Yes I know, now I want to see some RS saying they were part of the Axis powers, not allied with Germany, party to the axis.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Again. The argument is NOT over whether USSR was part of the Axis. It's whether the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Absolutely no one here is claiming that USSR was part of the axis. Francois Robere keeps trying to use this line as a strawman despite the fact that he's been asked to drop it since that's not what the discussion is about. Volunteer Marek
- And neither France nor the UK declared war on Russia, thus is was not part of the same conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Again. The argument is NOT over whether USSR was part of the Axis. It's whether the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Absolutely no one here is claiming that USSR was part of the axis. Francois Robere keeps trying to use this line as a strawman despite the fact that he's been asked to drop it since that's not what the discussion is about. Volunteer Marek
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)
- Hitler always intended to "go with Barbarossa", and never seriously considered the USSR as a member of the Tripartitie Act. In any case, whatever was agreed to "provisionally", they never jined, so the information is irrelevant here. Countries consider doing many things, what they actually do is what's important. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is actually not true and not backed by any sources. Hitler was willing to have Soviets join the Axis if they were willing to stay in Asia. Nazi Germany explicitly offered the Soviets control over Middle East and Persian Gulf. Ribbentrop, on behalf of Hitler, explicitly invited Stalin to join the Tripartite Pact. Stalin agreed but with demands for a naval base on the Bosporus. At that point Hitler changed his mind (this was as late as December 1940) and green lit Barbarossa. Volunteer Marek 14:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, both monsters had similar plans for each other, but that doesn't mean they didn't cooperate at the beginning of the war. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, But what they consider, while of lesser importance, is often notable and relevant. Hence why we have articles about treaties that have not been signed/ratified yet, etc. (And in some cases, never will be - ACTA, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, Makes sense. I'd support addition this (with a reliable source, of course). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Talks that ended with naught, no deal.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean “no deal”? Fact that Stalin accepted joining the pact is surely significant. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Talks that ended with naught, no deal.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- The pact had never been signed. Negotiations failed, similarly to 1939 Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations. Do you propose to add both?
- Moreover, USSR initiated triple negotiations, and it was a position of UK and France that lead to their failure. With regard to Soviet-Axis talks, initiative came from Ribbentrop, and Molotov disagreed with German proposal, which ignored Soviet interest in Balkans.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, yes, both should be mentioned. But here we're talking about USSR agreeing to join the Tripatrite Alliance in 1940, not 1939. And I think you have it backwards - USSR was willing to join the Axis if it was given interests in the Balkans but it was the Germans who at that point ignored the Soviets. Last diplomatic note on the subject was Moscow --> Berlin, not vice versa. Volunteer Marek 14:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not "agreeing", but "negotiating in a responce to Hitler's invitation". "Agreeing" is misleading, because it sounds like USSR agreed to join the Axis, but Hitler rejected that idea. In reality, a situation was different: Hitler and Molotov were discussing possible Soviet membership in the Axis, but Hitler's conditions didn't satisfy Stalin, and Stalin's conditions were rejected by Hitler. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- He did agree though. Volunteer Marek 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed to what?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- To join the Tripartite Pact. Volunteer Marek 16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed to what?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- To claim that, you need (i) to provide the source that explicitly says so, and (ii) to demonstrate that that source represents a majority viewpoint. I tried to find that information, but 10 minute googling provided no sources (instead, I found several interesting sources saying otherwise), which demonstrates that the viewpoint you are pushing is a minority view. You either provide evidences (vide supra) or stop POV pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken you are right Hitler always intended to "go with Barbaross, and never seriously considered the USSR as a member of the Tripartitie Act.
Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, led to one of the most brutal campaigns of World War II: of the estimated 70 million people who died in World War II, over 30 million died on the Eastern Front. Although it has previously been argued that the campaign was a pre-emptive strike, in fact, Hitler had been planning a war of intervention against the USSR ever since he came to power in 1933. Using previously unseen sources, acclaimed military historian Rolf-Dieter Muller shows that Hitler and the Wehrmacht had begun to negotiate with Poland and had even considered an alliance with Japan soon after taking power. Despite the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, at the declaration of war in September 1939, military engagement with the Red Army was still a very real and imminent possibility. In this book, Muller takes us behind the scenes of the Wehrmacht High Command, providing a fascinating insight into an unknown story of World War II.
Rolf-Dieter Muller is Professor of Military History at Humboldt University, Berlin; Scientific Director of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Institute in Potsdam; and Coordinator of the 'The German Reich and the Second World War' project. He is the author of numerous publications on World War II including The Unknown Eastern Front: The Wehrmacht and Hitler's Foreign Soldiers (I.B.Tauris). https://www.amazon.com/Enemy-East-Hitlers-Secret-Invade/dp/178076829X70.54.168.41 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your point is. Volunteer Marek 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hitler always wanted to do a operation Barbarossa just like he always wanted to do a General plan ost on the polish people.70.54.168.41 (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe. We actually don't know what "Hitler always wanted". What we do know is that Hitler asked Stalin to join the Tripatrite Pact, Stalin agreed, but then Hitler changed his mind. Volunteer Marek 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, we actually do know what "Hitler always wanted" because he had been saying as much for decades. That was the entire point of wanting Lebensraum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- And yet he invited Stalin to join the Axis. And Stalin agreed. And then Hitler changed his mind. Or maybe he didn't, who knows, maybe it was just stalling. Who cares? The point is that Hitler asked and Stalin agreed and there's no dispute about that. And that's a cold hard fact rather than speculation about "what Hitler always wanted" or how he wanted to get it. Anyway. Show me sources. Volunteer Marek 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, we actually do know what "Hitler always wanted" because he had been saying as much for decades. That was the entire point of wanting Lebensraum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gilbert's The Second World War states that "Molotov was dubious of Soviet adherence to the Axis", and suggests that the Soviets were aware of the German preparations for invasion owing to a spy operating in Tokyo. François Robere (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is true but it doesn't change the basic facts. Pretty much any country/leader will pursue several strategies at once so as to have options and respond to events as they unfold. Hitler was preparing for a possible war with USSR just as he was asking them to join the Axis. Both things are true. In the end, while he asked them to join the Tripartite Pact and Stalin agreed, Hitler chose to go with the invasion. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- What's your source for Stalin agreeing to join? François Robere (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is true but it doesn't change the basic facts. Pretty much any country/leader will pursue several strategies at once so as to have options and respond to events as they unfold. Hitler was preparing for a possible war with USSR just as he was asking them to join the Axis. Both things are true. In the end, while he asked them to join the Tripartite Pact and Stalin agreed, Hitler chose to go with the invasion. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- let's be more precise: Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin. For further details (and to avoid cherry-picking), I looked at the sources (I believe there will be no objections to my keywords choice), and representative sources are Roberts, Gorodetsky and Watson. At least, these will be the sources any good faith Wikipedian with no preliminary knowledge of the subject would find. Of course, if someone wants to push some specific POV, they can cherry-pick a source saying that Stalin's dream was an alliance with Hitler. However, we all want to stay neutral, aren't we?
- What these representative sources say? We already know that Roberts says that Stalin was shocked after fall of France, and he sent Molotov to Berlin partially to figure out Hitler's intentions. It was more a political game than a sincere desire to join the Axis.
- Gorodetsky says that "it is not sufficiently stressed that rather than participating in the dismembering of the British Empire, Molotov stubbornly insisted on the Soviet short-term strategic aim of securing a buffer zone in the Baltic and in particular in the Balkans, where the Germans now posed a serious threat to Russia. The negotiations indeed broke down over Germany's declared interests in Finland, Romania and Bulgaria". That even remotely resembles Molotov's agreement to join the Axis, which Hitler refused to accept.
- Watson, whose article is devoted specifically to Molotov's role as a minister of foreign affairs in 1939-, mentions his visit to Berlin in passing.
- In summary, I see no proof that Stalin's agreement to join the Axis (which never happened due to Hitler's refusal) is a popular concept. However, I am ready to consider your evidences (presented in a neutral and logically correct manner).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's in Davies' "No Simple Victory" and a few other sources. You'll have to wait for me to brave the raging pandemic and make it to my office for more specifics (that's partly why I brought it up on talk rather than just putting it in myself). Volunteer Marek 18:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- In summary, I see no proof that Stalin's agreement to join the Axis (which never happened due to Hitler's refusal) is a popular concept. However, I am ready to consider your evidences (presented in a neutral and logically correct manner).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think you are supposed to have a remote access to all resources like OUP, Springer, Jstor etc, just ask you IT specialists. According to this, Davies is a revisionist, so it would be premature to present his viewpoint as a majority view. In general, he objects to glossing all Allies (not only USSR), and that may be correct, taking into account that the WWII history is still being written mostly from (western) winners' perspective. Therefore, it is not a surprise that some of his statements may be exaggeration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert: A longer quote from Gilbert, which sits well with what you found:
As to Russia, [Hitler's Directive 18] stated, ‘all preparations for the East... will be continued’, and further directives would follow... ‘as soon as the basic operational plan of the Army has been submitted to me and approved’.
This clear indication that an invasion of Russia remained Hitler’s goal coincided with the visit to Berlin of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov... Molotov wanted to know what Russia’s part would be in the New Order of Germany, Italy and Japan, as created by the Tripartite Pact, and where matters stood in the Balkans and Roumania, with regard to Russia’s interests. Hitler had no answer, telling Molotov that they must break off their discussion...
[The next day] Molotov continued his talks with Ribbentrop, who proposed that the Soviet Union become a partner in the Tripartite Pact. Molotov was dubious of Soviet adherence to the Axis, referring to Italy’s setbacks... and telling Ribbentrop he thought that ‘the Germans were assuming that the war against England has already been won’... [Some time later] British bombers came over Berlin yet again, and they had to... continue their talks in Ribbentrop’s own air-raid shelter... Rubbing salt in the wound, Molotov said that ‘he did not regret the air raid alarm’, as it had provided the occasion for an ‘exhaustive’ discussion...
It was something else, however, that Molotov said to Ribbentrop... which convinced Hitler that he would only be put further and further in difficulties by Soviet ambitions if the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 were to remain the basis of German policy... Molotov went so far as to tell Ribbentrop that Russia could never entirely give up its interest in the western approaches to the Baltic: the waters of the Kattegat and Skagerrak, between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, once under Danish, but under German control since May.
François Robere (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes and none of this contradicts the fact that Stalin agreed to join the pact in November 1940. Volunteer Marek 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Davies doesn't state that the USSR joined the Axis. François Robere (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Again. USSR agreed to join the Tripartite Pact. It never did join it because Hitler changed his mind. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Repeating the same argument without providing evidences is by no means helpful. You just demonstrate that you have no arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's not exactly what he's saying:
- Again. USSR agreed to join the Tripartite Pact. It never did join it because Hitler changed his mind. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
...Hitler had first to examine what might be gained by prolonging the Nazi-Soviet Pact. After all, the Soviets could not have failed to notice Germany’s greatly enhanced position, and Stalin might be persuaded to make some interesting concessions... To this end, Molotov was invited to Berlin in November 1940. He was peculiarly unforthcoming...
Two issues brought negotiations to an impasse. One was Romania, which both Germany and the USSR wished to dominate. The other concerned the conditions on which Stalin might agree to join the Tripartite Pact... Ribbentrop sent a proposal to that effect via Molotov, and in a note of 25 November Stalin provisionally agreed. The devil lay in the details. The Nazis sought to use the Tripartite Pact as an instrument for keeping Stalin out of Europe... Stalin, in contrast, sought to use it as a means of reviving historic Russian claims in the Balkans. Apart from demanding the withdrawal of all German troops from Finland, his note of 25 November envisaged not only a Russo-Bulgarian treaty, but also a Soviet naval base on the Bosporus... Neither Germany nor Italy could tolerate such a prospect. Indeed, Berlin and Rome must have woken up to the fact... that the Soviet Union, once internally stabilized, would prove no less imperialist and aggressive than its tsarist predecessor. No reply was ever sent to Stalin’s note of 25 November. Instead, on 18 December 1940, Hitler drew up Directive 21, ‘Case Barbarossa’...
The implications are obvious... Stalin’s attitudes, no less than Hitler’s, determined the shift towards German-Soviet conflict. The decision to prepare plans for ‘Case Barbarossa’ was driven by ‘the combination of Britain’s refusal to make peace and the expansionist aims of the Soviet Union’.
- There's a lot more there, but these seem like the most relevant parts. François Robere (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn’t actually contradict what I (and Davies) say. Also you have a lot of ellipsis in there. Volunteer Marek 07:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is close to what Roberts says. I am not sure we need to waste our time further.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Paul Siebert, I think this discussion is off track. Nobody is saying USSR was part of the Axis. Obviously, it wasn't, and the 1940 negotiations which didn't conclude are just historical trivia. What is relevant is whether USSR was an ally or co-belligerent to the Nazi Germany (and by the extension, Axis) due to its invasion of Poland in 1939. We have a number of sources saying that they were, and not a lot of sources (zero?) arguing otherwise (particularly for the term co-belligerent, which is what is used in the current infobox, as the term ally is I think more problematic and best ignored). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is a somewhat different discussion. It’s not about the info box but whether this info should be added to the article. Volunteer Marek 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Paul Siebert, I think this discussion is off track. Nobody is saying USSR was part of the Axis. Obviously, it wasn't, and the 1940 negotiations which didn't conclude are just historical trivia. What is relevant is whether USSR was an ally or co-belligerent to the Nazi Germany (and by the extension, Axis) due to its invasion of Poland in 1939. We have a number of sources saying that they were, and not a lot of sources (zero?) arguing otherwise (particularly for the term co-belligerent, which is what is used in the current infobox, as the term ally is I think more problematic and best ignored). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- There's a lot more there, but these seem like the most relevant parts. François Robere (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Opposed to listing the USSR in the infobox, Poland issued an ultimatum to Czechoslovakia, invaded, clashed with the defenders and then annexed a part of its territory at the same time as Nazi Germany did. This according to Piotrus' and Volunteer Marek's own definition makes Poland an Axis co-belligerent.--Catlemur (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to put words in my mouth or tell me what "my definition" is. My "definition" is very simple. Here it is: Do sources refer to Nazi Germany and some other country as "ALLIES" or "CO-BELLIGERENT"? Yes? Then we do to. No? Then we don't. There are dozens of mainstream high quality sources which refer to USSR and Nazi Germany as "allies" (or co belligerents) in 1939-1941. There are NO sources which refer in such terms to Poland and Nazi Germany. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. François Robere (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Opposed As plenty of nations had "confused" alliances at the start of the war. They cooperated on one invasion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- The point is that whether these were "confused" or not, they DID have them so they should be included in the article. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Temporary extended confirmed protection
I asked for Temporary extended confirmed protection to prevent what appears orchestrated edit wars and trolling by new accounts and VPN-generated IPs. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I concur this would be useful ([13] and others). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Infobox
I have a feeling that the above infobox discussion(s) is being conducted in a totally disorganized manner ("My source says X, so we should include it into the infobox" - "No, my source says Y, so we should not include your statement in the infobox", etc). In reality, this discussion should be a two-step process. First, we should achieve some consensus about general criteria of inclusion/exclusion of some information into the infobox. Second, we must apply these criteria to all items. As a first step, I propose to discuss criteria of co-belligerence. I think, keeping in mind that WWII was a large scale and global conflict, this threshold should be high, so small scale military incidents and/or the incidents that didn't lead to war declaration should not be included (otherwise a reader may be confused). Do you have any comments on that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)