Talk:Axis powers/Archive 10

Should Burma be added as a co-belligerent?
Per my note above, "why is Burma not in the infobox? It has its own section in the article under '	Bilateral agreements with the Axis Powers' and all four other countries in that section are listed as co-belligerents." Let's discuss this in the new section for transparency. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you all (not directed at anybody in particular) stop opening different sections to argue different spins of the same thing and instead get a single centralized discussion to resolve this obviously rather annoying issue. As to "why is Burma not in the infobox", what is required is a WP:RS which identifies it as a co-belligerent (or equivalents of that term), not WP:SYNTH - this is the only way to resolve the issue to a satisfactory level for everybody, as otherwise I have the feeling you'll get bogged down into details of what is and what is not a co-belligerent, which is a waste of everybody's time as it would fall well foul of WP:NOR... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree RandomCanadian. If you want to do something with that "co-belligerent" stuff, then you should open "co-belligerent of WW2" in military history section first, not to mention whole the country which you think as co-belligerent in each talk page.... What a waste of time exactly.... -- Wendylove (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked Piotrus to open a new section, since already the opened sections having deteriorated with many cross-reference and soon the whole would be hard to trace. So yes, hotch-potch should be continued in the already opened sections, but for any clear-cut proposal a new section is necessary and anything should be as concise as possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Only if it is universally described using the term in WP:RSes. Nothing should be listed there without that. --Aquillion (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it should because it was a puppet state of the Japanese. Cupcake547 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC).

Co-belligerent
This article is not about WW2, it is not about "the Axis in WW2". Thus I am unsure if Co-beligerant should even be here. After all WW2 was not the only war fought by an Azis power in this period.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Co-belligerents should only be included here if there is a reference saying that they were an ally of Germany/Italy/Japan/the Axis. For example, Iran did fight against the UK and the USSR, but I have not seen a single reference referring to them as having been a German/Japanese/Italian/Axis (or whatever) ally and as such I would not support them being included unless a reference can be provided to support inclusion. On the other hand Finland's wartime government claimed to be simply a co-belligerent of Germany, but this should not be decisive since there is plentiful evidence in reliable sources stating that Finland was basically a German ally and part of the axis. FOARP (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So it has to say, ally, not aided, sided with, helped, accomplice, just ally? This is why this is a bad idea to have this. What is a "co-beligerant"? This article covers at least 3 years without a significant war in Europe. It would be best (to my mind and to avoid further conflict) to just remove this from the info box and discuss details in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "This article covers at least 3 years without a significant war in Europe." - which period is that? If we're talking about pre-1936 then I think you may be correct. I don't think the sub-headings in the infobox are particularly helpful as it leads to daisy-chain arguments (e.g., "Finland was self-described during the war as a co-belligerent and is included as part of the Axis, therefore any country that was arguably a co-belligerent of the Axis was also part of the Axis").
 * The reason to include Finland (and indeed any other country) is not that it was a co-belligerent, it's that reliable sources describe it as having been a German ally and/or axis member regardless of the claims of its wartime government. FOARP (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And again, does it have to only be ally, or can it also be aided, sided with, helped, accomplice (or even pro)? By not having this heading, and only including actual signed up members we remove the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But what is an "actual, signed up member"? If this article is restricted to Tripartite Pact signatories then it becomes simply a duplicate of the Tripartite Pact article. A review of the sources shows the Axis is defined more widely than the Tripartite Pact. Other alliances of different degrees of formality were involved. Bottom line is if anyone wants to include a country here they need to provide sources supporting that inclusion and they need to be pretty explicit about that country having been an ally of the Axis. FOARP (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And then we have arguments over what is and is not acceptable criteria. But yes this does begin to look all a bit forky, an article created just to say X or Y was part of the axis.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if that wasn't the original intent, and even if (which I believe is possible) the article can be edited so as not to be a WP:POVFORK, "an article ... just to say X or Y was part of the axis" is what it seems to be right now. This is why we have these repeated, facile arguments about the infobox which are driven entirely by WP:POINTy behaviour.
 * This article should be GA at least, but it isn't and stands no chance of becoming so. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * maybe this then [] should be our model, we only include nations that "joined the Axis" rather than just some connection with it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Actually, by using a loose definition of the term "the Axis" (which is not just a Tripartite Pact) and trying to introduce a strict term "Axis co-belligerent" we are making a big mistake. In reality, that division is artificial. Thus, some sources (vide supra) describe Romania as "Germany co-belligerent", despite the fact that it was the Axis member. And that is not a mistake: actually, it is possible to be the Axis member without being Axis co-belligerent (Bulgaria was not at war with the USSR, as far as I know). I agree it would be better to get rid of "co-belligerent" section at all. With regard to Finland, it never formally joined the Tripartite Pact, but, keeping in mind that the term "The Axis" is more loose, I see no reason why cannot it be included as the Axis power (with a reservation that it never signed the Tripartite Pact). That is what EB says:


 * "During the war a number of other countries joined the Axis, induced by coercion or promises of territory or protection by the Axis powers. They included Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia (after Czechoslovakia had divided in 1939) in November 1940, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in March 1941, and, after the wartime breakup of Yugoslavia, Croatia (June 1941). Finland, although it did not formally join the Tripartite Pact, cooperated with the Axis because of its opposition to the Soviet Union (to which Finland had been forced to cede territory in 1940) and entered the war in 1941."

I think if we use a loose definition of the Axis, a division onto the Axis members and co-belligerents should be removed and replaced to "Other states".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to only include countries which we actually have sources saying were members of the Axis here. The title of the article is "Axis powers" (setting aside what a "power" is ....) this means it should be about Axis countries. The following have no source explicitly identifying them as part of the Axis:
 * Iraq
 * Wang Jingwei regime
 * Denmark
 * Manchuria (though I note this source at least identifies them as part of the Axis)
 * Spain
 * Ba Maw regime
 * USSR
 * Vichy
 * Albania
 * Serbia
 * Greece
 * Cambodia
 * Mengjiang
 * Laos
 * Vietnam
 * Philippines
 * The various Japanese puppet states could fairly be covered in a sub-section under the Japan section on the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere. This would, anyway, bring the focus back to where it belongs and shorten the article to the length where it needs to be (it needs to lose at least 20kb to meet WP:LENGTH). FOARP (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would rather (to avoid future conflict) just avoid any inclusion of anyone not actually described as a member of the axis powers by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support removal of co-belligerents altogether — Slater's right, "co-belligerent" only makes sense in the context of a specific episode of belligerence: as in, in an attack, or a particular war. This article isn't limited to the Axis in WWII, some countries' status changes over time, and that seems to be the root of the dispute over whether countries should be listed as co-belligerents. The idea of "Axis co-belligerents" requires more nuance than is possible (or desirable) in an infobox. Listing almost any country as a "co-belligerent" in the infobox gives the reader an incomplete picture at best (at worst, a completely false picture). So, the best move is to just list the Axis powers in the infobox, and not list co-belligerents at all. Levivich harass/hound 18:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is valid point. However, USSR and Nazi Germany, for example, did attack Poland from two sides, after having a preliminary written agreement about it. Hence they indeed were true co-belligerents based on "a specific episode of belligerence: as in, in an attack, or a particular war". Would not you agree? Speaking logically, any country that was a co-belligerent with Axis countries, during any period of time should be included on this page My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree about the infobox, but I do not agree that "this article isn't limited to the Axis in WWII". Specifically, I do not think there is a any clear definition of the Axis not in terms of World War II. It is true that the term originates in the years just before the war, but war trumps diplomacy. "Axis", like "Entente", "Central Powers" and "Allies", refers to one side in a global conflict—and in all cases was a product of the war itself as much as of pre-war diplomacy. The reason we should remove the co-belligerents (except Finland, which was fully Axis) is that it is very likely to mislead the casual reader and the infobox is for just such a reader. Srnec (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support removal of co-belligerents- It was "controversial" to put co-belligerence since exist of this term. By its meaning co-belligerence is the state which related to the war which has common enemy. By its vague meaning, I think we shouldn't use the word co-belligerence here. Other states what User:FOARP mention is puppet-states and they have participated various activities with Axis power (except for Soviets which is controversial right now), so I don't think we should delete them for now. -- Wendylove (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing deleting them, just grouping them under the heading of their "boss" country if there is no source identifying them as a member of Axis. Croatia, Slovakia, and Hungary (governed by a German-installed government after 1944) are described in multiple sources as Axis members, signed the Tripartite pact, so they would remain separate (but noted as governed as puppet states). FOARP (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose any major change on the outline and categorization of the infobox. Professionally and well set modifications possible. I still stand not any general guide may decide inclusion in this complex area, but all entities should be judged and discussed one-by-one.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC))
 * SUPPORT removal of co-belligerents from the infobox. The title of this article is "Axis powers". Naturally you'd expect the infobox to list countries that we know are Axis power because reliable sources call them that. Is a co-belligerent necessarily a member of the Axis? This is dubious. Finland claimed to be a co-belligerent during the war but plenty of reliable sources simply identify them as a member of the Axis. In the case of Finland, the idea that they were "co-belligerents" is generally just considered to be wartime spin, not undoubted fact. We have sources identifying the USSR as a "German Ally" during the M-R pact, but again this is not the same as sources identifying the USSR explicitly as a member of the Axis. The same goes for puppet states that are not explicitly described as Axis-members in reliable sources, though these may be grouped under their "boss" country title - puppet states that are explicitly described as Axis members in reliable sources should remain in the infobox. The M-R pact can be covered in the article under bilateral relations, a section on Poland is just trolling TBH. FOARP (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose strongly - for two reasons. First, the page in current state is actually very good and informative. Being only slightly familiar with this subject, I found many things I did not know about on this page, in particular all these complex connections between different countries during WWII. Removing more than 50% of content from this page (as suggested) will dramatically degrade it. Secondly, some countries from the list above do belong to this page. There is no any doubts. For example, USSR and Nazi Germany did both attack Poland, after having a preliminary written agreement about it. Hence they indeed were true co-belligerents based on "a specific episode of belligerence: such as an actual attack and an actual war". Thinking logically, any country that was a co-belligerent with Axis countries, during any period of time should be included on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - Including states which fought against the Allies but for which there is no reference at all saying they were in the Axis and which are not presently included on this page (e.g., Iran)? Regarding length, the corresponding article on the Allies is half the length, covers more countries, and is in every way better. FOARP (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am saying we must include all countries that collaborated military (or had significant political agreements/pacts) with Axis countries on this page if we want this page to be interesting and informative. And especially such pacts and coordinated military actions (with Nazi Germany) which started the entire WWII. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussing them on this page in terms of bi-lateral relations with Axis countries, yes, but in the infobox in what is supposed to be a list of Axis countries? I would say that needs a source saying explicitly that they were in the Axis. FOARP (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about "bi-lateral relations". Everyone had such relations with everyone. We are talking about a de facto actual military alliance with Axis countries. But, yes, these are not Axis countries, and therefore they are NOT included in in the infobox as Axis countries, but separately. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How does it make sense in the infobox for a page about the Axis, to list countries that weren't in the Axis? FOARP (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't think anyone is suggesting removing 50% of the content of the page. This relates solely to the infobox and to if we should use the specific term "co-belligerent"; at least based on most of the opinions I'm seeing here, the more in-depth details on those Axis-adjacent nations and their involvement would remain in the article body without much change. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support removal of co-belligerents- Co-belligerence has a rather strict legal meaning, it's not for Wikipedian editors to judge. Do note that the 1947 Peace Treaty with Finland defines the country as "an ally of Hitlerite Germany", not a co-belligerent.Anonimu (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree on Finland. It is not only the peace agreement that says this, either, plenty of historians say the same. The entire idea that being simply a "co-belligerent" of the Axis was a thing is basically the POV of Finland's wartime government. FOARP (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 100% agree on Finland. It is the whole reason there is a co-belligerents section in the infobox that attracts countries that don't belong. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. As this page correctly tells, "Although Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact, it fought against the Soviet Union alongside Germany in the 1941-44 Continuation War", and so on. See the photo of Mannerheim with Hitler. Finland absolutely must remain on the page, just as Vichy France. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this an article about the Tripartite Pact? No. So why is membership of the (never actually invoked, barely ever operated) Tripartite Pact decisive as to whether a country should or should not be described as an Axis member? What is decisive is reliable sources describing Finland as being an Axis member, which means we should keep them there as an Axis member. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See, you misunderstood what they've said. Finland and Vichy France, Iraq, Thailand is not a co-belligerent of Axis power. They are Axis power themselves. The countries that belong to "co-belligerent" section should be deleted, and we are going to put it on Axis itself. Like "Tripartite Pact" and "Other countries" -- Wendylove (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say any country for which sourcing can be found describing them as a member of the Axis should be kept. For Finland and Thailand we have this so they should stay in a list of Axis countries. For Vichy and Iraq we don't have this. In fact it is unclear to me why Vichy and Iraq should be included (and Iran not included) in a list of Axis countries, since we don't have any sources saying they were members of the Axis (and AFAIK we also don't have sources saying they were co-belligerents). FOARP (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral to removal/keeping the term "co-belligerents", but retain Finland, Thailand, Iraq in the infobox- No matter what term is decided on to describe, they cooperated military and declared/waged war in cooperation/alliance with the Axis powers and should be shown in the infobox in some capacity... Neutral on inclusion or not of the USSR --Havsjö (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to include both Finland and Thailand as simply Axis members. We can have a footnote for Finland saying it is described by some (not all) as being a co-belligerent. Thailand would need a source saying they were a co-belligerent even for that. Iraq, on the other hand, we both have no sources describing as a "co-belligerent" AND no sources saying they were an Axis-member - so why describe them as being either? FOARP (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * According to a 2008 Helsingin Sanomat poll with 28 history professors (link), 16 said that Finland was allied with Germany, 6 disagreed and 6 didn't want to take a clear stance. However, the fact that it wasn't a de jure alliance made a difference with things like that the United States never declared war on Finland despite being de facto allied with Germany. So it should stay but the relationship should covered with more detail. --Pudeo (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Though it might be important to consider that "Axis powers" & "allied with Nazi Germany" are not necessarily the same thing. --Pudeo (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link Pudeo, it's very useful input. The Helsingin Sanomat poll is interesting as it provides statistical proof for what has been said in e.g., the Tallgren reference (that even in Finland, the narrative that Finland was only a co-belligerent is controversial/not widely believed by modern historians). However, we have other sources that describe Finland as an Axis member (for example 1 2 3, 4) and it appears to be a widely-held view outside Finland. The Finns are not the only people who have taken a view on this, nor are Finnish source the only ones that should be referred to. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support removal of co-belligerents from the infobox unless significant mainstream sources can be found using the term; the term has very specific meaning, so it's WP:OR for us to apply it ourselves unless we have sources doing so. However, I don't support removing the related material from the article body - we should avoid the term "co-belligerents" unless directly supported by the sources, but the body of the article can discuss the full depth of involvement other nations had in the Axis war effort while following the sources more closely. It's only the infobox, which has trouble reflecting the full nuance of the sources, that is the problem. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we've got a pretty good, stable rough consensus for just taking the "co-belligerent" classification out of the infobox and leaving in the countries that we have references for being part of the Axis (Finland and Thailand). This is especially based on the arguments around WP:OR and WP:V. This proposal is better than that in the troll-poll above about Poland, for which almost no policy is cited. My proposal is a simple division into "Founding members" (Germany, Italy, Japan) and "Other Axis powers" (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Finland, Thailand) with footnotes for why each is included (e.g., 1) "Tripartite pact members", 2) "Did not sign Tripartite pact, generally considered Axis member, see [cites]"). Unless there's any objection beyond what's discussed above I intend to do that. FOARP (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FOARP, I support your proposal as it sensible and policy based. It will also reduce flames around this page.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is reasonable, and it seems to reflect consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with it. I changed the wording away from "founding members", since I'm not entirely sure what that means. When did these three "found" the Axis? It can't be 1936 or where are the other Anti-Comintern powers. Also, the current treatment of Croatia (full name) now looks especially odd. Srnec (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy with any wording that doesn't imply that the Tripartite Pact and the Axis are synonymous - the Axis existed before the Tripartite pact, and had members who didn't sign the Tripartite pact. I've gone with "original Axis members" but anything similar will do. Agree the name of Croatia is odd, since no other country gets the "full name" treatment and am happy to change. Some countries have been marked as being included in the Axis as "As tripartite pact signatories", but this is just so that people can understand why they are included there, in reality we could instead refer to another common listing of Axis countries (e.g., the Bowman reference or any other). FOARP (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure what makes the Tripartite powers the "original" or "founding" Axis members. Was there any tripartite agreement between them prior to the Tripartite Pact? It just feels like backdating the pact to 1936 (given the date at the top of the infobox). I am not in favour of "demoting" Japan, but Germany and Italy were the two "founding"/"original" Axis powers insofar as the term was first used to describe their relationship from 1936. Srnec (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky one and I don't think there's any easy answer. As discussed by e.g., the Cooke reference the Axis consisted of the Tripartite pact (TP), the Anti-Comintern Pact (ACP), Pact of Steel (PoS). Germany and Japan signed the ACP in 1936 (and by Italy in 1937 - EDIT: as an aside, Italy's entry into the agreement specified that they were to be considered an original signatory of it), PoS was signed by Italy and Germany in 1939, TP was signed by all three in 1940. Since the term "the Axis" or "the Axis powers" was being used before the TP, and since we already have a separate article on the TP, and since certain countries are generally considered to have been Axis members without ever signing the TP (e.g., Finland, Thailand), I don't think we can adopt a position where "the Axis" = the TP. Really "the Axis" wasn't a formal alliance but instead a loose coalition, the TP was never actually invoked and barely operated.
 * I suppose one solution would be simply to get rid of the distinction between DE-JP-IT and the other Axis countries and list them in a single list. Another might be to change the distinction to "Major Axis powers" and "Minor Axis powers", a quick GBooks search does show that at least the "minor Axis powers" description has some validity. Any other ideas? FOARP (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That will definitely not a solution, for the very name "The Axis" is just a short form of "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis".


 * In general, as far as I know, an overwhelming majority of sources agree that the Axis was composed of four category states:


 * The Axis' "Big Three" (Germany, Italy, Japan);


 * The independent states that joined the Axis by signing the Tripartite Agreement;
 * The semi-independent states that never existed by 1937 and that formed as a result of military actions of the Axis or some its members/future members (Slovakia, Croatia, etc.)


 * The states that were co-belligerents of one of the Axis members, and who were extensively participating in joint military activity after the Tripartite pact was signed (Finland, Thailand(?))


 * That makes the Axis intrinsically inhomogeneous, which must be reflected in the infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree that the Axis was not a homogenous blob. Any division of the countries needs to be something supported by sources though. I agree that DE-IT-JP should be in a grouping by themselves. I see some sources supporting a major/minor split, but I am open to doing it other ways. I am not sure that the overwhelming majority of sources do actually divide the Axis in exactly the way you've put forth (for example this article on the history of the Axis written from a global perspective does not mention these four classes - indeed it talks a lot about how vaguely defined the Axis actually is/was) but am happy to look at sources showing this.
 * Also worth noting that the original Axis was the "Rome-Berlin Axis". The title "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis" certainly does not appear to have been very widely used, and at present is without a source in our article. In a rough measure of how common these two titles are, I see 229 GScholar hits for "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis" and 1990 hits for "Rome-Berlin Axis". "The Axis" existed before the Tripartite Pact so it seems better not to equate the TP to being in the Axis. FOARP (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. We should remove the Co-Belligerents, but still keep the countries that fought there because they declared war on the Allies, like Thailand (Siam), Iraq, Hungary and Finland. Most sources also agree that Thailand and Finland supported the Axis Powers overwhelmingly, even though they did not sign the Tripartite Pact. Cupcake547 (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2021 (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. This was challenged. I concur USSR was never recognized as an Axis power, but per quote added 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  with a request for an explicit citation. Well, the source explicitly states it was an ally so... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; 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:  "The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; 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 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 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) , 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&#124; 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" 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)
 * , 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&#124; 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)
 * , 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: . 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&#124; 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&#124; 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)
 * , 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&#124; 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)
 * , 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&#124; 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)

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 mentioned lack of references, here they are: 1)  2) . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Regarding adding sources (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&#124; 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.”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)  — Erin Vaxx (talk&#x20;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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 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)
 * , 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&#124; 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)
 * 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 in absence 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&#124; 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)
 * , 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&#124; reply here 05:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the section that I created below is partially inspired by this your post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 28 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)
 * 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)
 * Well, there was no "Russia" but I'm not sure if this is relevant anyway. All that matters is whether sources call Soviet Union "allies" of Nazi Germany or not.  Volunteer Marek   15:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No it's whether or not they are called Allies or co-belligerents of the axis, NAzi Germany is not the Axis, it was part of it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No it's whether or not they are called Allies or co-belligerents of the axis, NAzi Germany is not the Axis, it was part of it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Weiberg, World at Arms, p. 26: "The Soviet Union alone outside the Axis accepted the disappearance of Czechoslovakia and anticipated the disappearance of other countries." I don't quite have the leisure at the moment to go through the pages you cited above. François Robere (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Soviet Union was not in the Axis. No one is saying they were. I *just* asked you to stop misrepresenting the debate in such terms, yet here you are doing it again.  Volunteer Marek   17:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Listing the USSR in the Axis column (as an ally, co-belligerent or however labelled), from 36-39 (or any period of time), based on there being a treaty between the USSR and Nazi Germany, makes no sense. If we listed countries as allies/co-belligerents/whatever based on treaties (even treaties with secret codicils), we'd be in the weird position of listing countries (like the USSR) on both sides of the conflict. For example, if the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact makes the USSR a co-belligerent or ally of Germany, then the 1939 Munich Agreement would make the UK and France a co-belligerent or ally of Germany. But listing countries on both sides like this would be nonsensical, and extremely confusing to the reader. Yes, these agreements and the complicated, changing relationships of the parties before and during the war are obviously all content that is and should be covered in the article, but the infobox is supposed to give people a quick overview and some basic facts about the topic. If the topic is "Axis powers", the USSR should not be listed anywhere in the same column as the Axis powers. The USSR should be listed on the other column, where we list the countries that were opposed to the Axis powers, and the reason for this is simple: the USSR and Germany fought on opposite sides in World War II. Duh. Levivich harass/hound 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is a timestamp intervall and an appropriate chart with note inside the infobox, it should not be a problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

PLEASE NOTE - Discussion is NOT about whether USSR should be listed as an Axis Power
I feel compelled to emphasize that the discussion here is NOT about whether Soviet Union should be listed as an Axis Power, because a couple users insist on falsely framing the disagreement in those terms. This is a strawman fallacy.

The discussion is whether Soviet Union should be listed as an "ally" of Nazi Germany/Axis or a "co-belligerent" for the period in 1939-1941 before Hitler broke the alliance and attacked them (multiple high quality sources for this have been provided)

The infobox has three parts (image on right):


 * 1) "Tripartite Powers" - no one is saying USSR should go here
 * 2) "States that adhered to the Tripartite Pact" - while the Soviet Union had agreed to join the Tripartite Pact it ended up never joining because Nazi Germany broke off the negotiations. However no one is saying USSR should go here
 * 3) Co-belligerent states - this is what the argument is about Should USSR be included here?

Please address the issues actually raised and not SOME OTHER dispute which doesn't actually exist. Thank you.  Volunteer Marek  15:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, some editors are possibly confused. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Support: We should put this in the infobox because the USSR did invade Poland with Germany and was an Axis power until the German invasion of the USSR. Cupcake547 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Free India
Should we list Free India under Subhas Chandra Bose as an Axis power because it helped Japan invade British Burma, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Northeast India? (I would have listed it there, but I am not extended confirmed, so I can't edit). Cupcake547 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC).
 * not sure it was an Axis power, any more than (say) the BFC was. It was a volunteer military force, not a nation state.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was a volunteer force and a state because it was a puppet state of the Japanese. Thanks, Cupcake547 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC).
 * And not allied with any of the other Axis members (indeed the Germans had their own unaffiliated Indian unit) seem to have recognised it, only Japan. It was not a truly independent sovereign entity, nor was it a signatory to the Axis. As you say it was just a Japanese puppet.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That means I should probably not add it. Cupcake547 (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I was saying.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What do we mean by "list as an Axis power"? If you mean mention them on the page, well, Azad Hind is already mentioned on the page and its relations with Japan are discussed fairly fully. If you mean list them in the infobox then we need a source that describes them explicitly as one of the Axis powers. If not such references are available then WP:V is pretty clear that we should not describe them as an Axis Power unless we can verify this somehow, preferably from more than one reliable, independent source. I think the days when we simply listed every country/organisation that had some kind of relationship with the Axis powers  as  Axis Powers should be left behind, because that essentially led to people saying "Country X had a relationship with Axis Power Y, therefore we should list them as an Axis power" when literally zero reliable sources actually said that Country X was ever an Axis country, meaning it was both a WP:V-fail and WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)