Talk:Axis powers/Archive 9

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)
 * , 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&#124; reply here 10:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Makes sense. I'd support addition this (with a reliable source, of course). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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:

"...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)
 * , 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&#124; 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)


 * 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)
 * Good point. Either Poland should be added to the infobox or (preferably) the USSR should be removed. I would say the same thing about European theatre of World War II, which—hilariously—lists Stalin as a "commander and leader" of both the Allies and the Axis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , The last time I checked it was a bloodless invasion that doesn't even have its own article, because it was such a non-notable event (Polish foces simply occupied and a bit of territory with no resistance met). There's the little thing about WWII in Europe starting in 1939, not 1938... Nobody ever considered 1938 events in Czechoslovakia to be a part of WWII military operations. An ultimatum followed by a bloodless annexation hardly even meets the definition of 'conflict', which is required for invoking the term co-belligerence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a lovely argument, Piotrus. I doubt the 227,399 people who lived in that territory, carved up between Poland and Germany, viewed it the same. François Robere (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, do I understand you correctly that a bloodless annexation of Czechoslovakia by Germany hardly even meets the definition of 'conflict' too?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 28 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)

Opposed. The actual alliance, France and the UK, welcomed the Soviet move into Poland which only took place after the German's secured total victory and the Polish government and army were in the process of fleeing the country. The USSR fought against Japan and Romania during the period as well.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — Erin Vaxx (talk&#x20;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GizzyCatBella 🍁  14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also reinforce here, the Soviet Union is appropriately present in the infobox as she was co-belligerent for a period, undoubtedly per definiton. No excuse, no whitewash has room about it.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC))


 * Oppose. The alternative viewpoint that the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis is a minority position held by those with a Polish-centric viewpoint. The alliance did not regard the Soviet Union settling its unresolved issues in Eastern Poland/Western USSR as an act of war against the alliance. During 1939-41 the USSR also fought Japan and Romania, which were on the Axis side.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per Volunteer Marek. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is obviously an embarrassing chapter in Russian and ML history, so its understandable that they've tried to downplay it, but mainstream sources are unambiguous about the extensive collaboration between Germany and the Soviet Union prior to 1941. An agreement to partition a third state is not a simple nonaggression pact. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose No serious history book that I know of has ever identified the USSR as being an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Given Hitler's attitude to communism, I don't think that should come as a surprise to anyone. Anyway, what we would need to include this would be a preponderance of serious (not some random piece in a newspaper), neutral (in this case, that would mean neither Russian nor Polish), ideally academic and other high-quality level sources (WP:BESTSOURCES) which describe this as a fact - this lacking (there have been few, if any, such sources proposed - and in any case most history books, from the school book vulgarisation up to the most respectable, do not make a case for such a distinction), such an addition would fail WP:V and probably WP:NPOV too. Attempts to argue what a co-belligerent is and is not and what would fit under a given definition are rather poor and transparent attempts at WP:SYNTH (given the failure to find grounding in WP:RS, this could potentially be interpreted as WP:POVPUSHING, but editors here seem rather experienced so I assume such behaviour would be below them) which we must ignore per WP:NOR.


 * Finally, a word of wisdom from WP:POVPUSH: "The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, the article is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact." - simply because it is a fact that the USSR invaded Poland and did so while Nazi Germany was doing it does not make them "co-belligerents" or allies, especially given the wider context of ideological struggles (must it be reminded, that the Nazis were staunch anti-communist?), and we must not entertain this confusion between "facts" and "neutrality". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that historians in Poland, a country that has been a democracy for 30 years, where academic freedom is respected, are unable to form impartial judgements about World War II? Which countries’ historians qualify as “neutral” in your worldview? - Biruitorul Talk 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Yes, absolutely, USSR must be described as "co-belligerent", but only until June 1941, i.e. as described here: Co-belligerence with refs: . This is for two reasons. First, the cited sources say so. Second, I do not think that any serious mainstream historians disputed the fact that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union concluded the MR pact (the secret protocols) and acted accordingly, and not only military . This is simply a historical fact, not a personal view by anyone. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just another war over infoboxes with an attempt to squeeze every possible last ounce of info into them. That's not what they're for. Soviet participation in the invasion of Poland is a very minor part, if a part at all, of understanding the Axis vs Allies dynamic of WWII. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

USSR was added by IP, with no consensus
Adding the USSR to the Axis side was added by an IP, the same IP also claimed Katyn was part of "Polish Genocide in the Soviet Union". The addition of the IP did not undergo serious discussion, was not supported by sources, and is in opposition to how other encyclopedic sources such as Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum treat the Axis powers. Other reasonable encyclopedias do not list the USSR as an ally or co-belligerent.--Astral Leap (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am so embarrassed that this was here for two and a half years. Yikes. Levivich harass/hound 18:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was NOT added to the "Axis side". It was listed in the "co-belligerents" section. Please stop mischaracterizing the nature of the dispute, especially since you've been asked previously.
 * And that's actually not where it was added. Here is a version from 2016, two years before the IP edit (which simply restored it) where the info is clearly in that section . It goes farther back than that. So, Levivich, I'm sure we all appreciate your deeply felt embarrassment on the part of Wikipedia, but it might not be necessary after all. At least not in this instance.  Volunteer Marek   02:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Independent State of Croatia
The page describes Croatia as a puppet state (three sources).Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC) There is however Category:Client states of Nazi Germany and Client state. Some consistency would be nice.Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Something may be founded/created as a puppet state, which after will be a client state.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC))
 * This, plus if the sources say "puppet state" then that's what we're calling it - we don't typically second-guess reliable sources. "Puppet state" is (according to our article) a kind of "Client state", but not all client states are puppet states if our article is to be believed. What a category is called is not decisive of anything because it is often not based on the sources. FOARP (talk) 18:02, 5 February 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 for 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)
 * I 100% agree that establishing criteria for infobox and specifically for this category would be useful. One issue is "allies" vs "co-belligerents" vs "client states" (or something similar). For example should we include Independent State of Croatia anywhere in there?  Volunteer Marek   15:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you please be more focused? Do you agree with my approach to co-belligerence criteria?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Everything turns on being a special case at some point. Even if we came up with strict criteria as to what belonged in an infobox, we could still have a local consensus that over-rode it, or chose to have specific caveats next to the text.
 * The best way of achieving consensus quickly and to the point is for someone to state what they think belongs in the infobox and where they want to see it in the infobox. Then we understand what is being proposed, and can marshal thoughts and arguments appropriately GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * IMO, infoboxes are supposed to present the most essential and commonly accepted information, and special cases should be discussed in the article's body.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think special cases can be discussed in infobox too, with notes. Right now Italy and Croatia have longer notes, but USSR, Iraq and Finland, very short ones. This all started when I simply tried to expand the USSR's note... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * So Vichy France and the USSR are out because nobody declared war on them and they did not declare war, but Finland and Thailand remain? (Iraq is a weird case; I'd have to look it up.) That works for me, but the "co-belligerents" label should go. Srnec (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , I agree we should define the terms for the infobox, then check if various states match them. This is indeed a good approach. However, definition of co-belligerence in Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law doesn't say anything about declaring war (it defines co-belligerents as "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not." ], on a side note, that source also discusses few WWII cases but not Poland of France, unfortunately). With all due respect, I'd rather use the definition from an accepted, academic source than yours, which, surely incidentally, seems almost crafted to exclude USSR since it chose not to declare the war on Poland in '39... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

just crawling through superficially all the discussion (not just this section), reacting also to Gizzy's question, Yes, the Soviet Union is correctly listed by the co-belligerents with note. The current infobox is good and accurate, the main issue was about how to expanding the note, and other possibly technical questions about it. I hope you reach consensus about it the Soviet note expansion issue, but I reiterate, current infobox structure is perfect, as well Independent State of Croatia or Vichy France is in its perfect place. Any outsider editor will be totally confused seeing this wall of text (I don't say it in a negative manner, since these important issues has to be precisely discussed), but I recommend if something is outlined for change/further addition, it should be proposed strictly in a separate section, shortly/sharply, focusing only on that matter, with the most concise and minimal verbiage possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , A quick question - maybe needs its own subsection here - 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Srnec, being belligerent does not mean of necessity of declaration of war, it happened by many instances, not any entity should be excluded because of that. Anyway I don't understand just because a note would have been expanded, why this perfect infobox is speculated to be questioned/changed, seems an unnecessary waste of time (just because the Allies article it had problems, it does not mean here it was not perfect).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Piotrus, no problem, open a section for it, if its akin the other listed, I will support to add (just because the list it not complete, it does not mean the structure would be bad).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC))

The actual alliance, France and the UK, welcomed the Soviet move into Poland. The Soviets only moved into Poland after the Polish military completely collapsed and the government and high command was in flight (at some border town near Romania) .--Erin Vaxx (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<---  — Erin Vaxx (talk&#x20;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GizzyCatBella 🍁  14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * User:GizzyCatBella], I don't find this your comment appropriate. You de facto accused that user of being a sock/SPA. Accusations of misbeaviour is a personal attack. If you see some problem with that user, discuss it in some place that is intended specifically for that purpose. And, by the way, instead of reading essays, it might be more fruitful to familiarise yourself with behavioral guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Paul Siebert, note was triggered by this Vote I pointed out that this user had made few or no edits in other topic areas for transparency. It's a standard procedure now in intensely disputed areas. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Such a comment would be relevant if we !voted. There is no voting here, because Wikipedia is not democracy. Do you have any objections/comments on what that user says?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. No, I have no comments, just reporting, due to the recent two separate new accounts and IP blocked. This particular account has not made any other edits (a few small ones, 11 in total) before being heavily involved in this and only this topic. I believe it is worth noting so established editors get an accurate idea of the situation. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * So, instead of arguing that Erin Vaxx essentially reproduced the official Soviet POV, and modern sources look at that at somewhat different angle, you preferred to resort to ad hominem arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It did not matter to me what POV and what their position is. The account is new; it reverts without waiting for consensus, hence the note. Drop it, please. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ... and you decided that other experienced users do not know how to use the "contribs" button? Of course, that is the first thing I did when I'd seen that new account. Yes, the views this account is pushing are somewhat obsolete, but they may be a good counter-balance to ultra-revisionist views pushed by some other users. I would be grateful if in future you tried to be more focused at contributions, not contributors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul, I haven't "decided" on anything ... I aimed to make it simpler for established editors involved here to manage this mess, as I told you already. Please drop it. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am seriously disappointed. I started this section to invite others to join a work aimed to select neutral criteria for the Axis co-belligerence - and only Piotrus and VM supported that. All others continue mailing irrelevant posts about some specific country. I respectfully ask everybody to refrain from posting anything here that is not relevant to the section's topic.
 * I propose to discuss the following questions:


 * Do we agree that the infobox should contain only uncontroversial statements, and all controversial content should be moved to the article's body?


 * This article is not about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy, but about their formal military alliance. In connection to that, can we call those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis "the Axis co-belligerents"?


 * Can semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents?


 * What is a threshold for hostilities scale (in terms of duration and the number or troops) that warrants inclusion?
 * I think, the following analysis of Vichy's case by Ryan Goodman may be helpful for answering some of those questions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think more sources rather than one short (self-published?) piece by a legal scholar considering only US-Vichy relationship would be needed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This source was authored by a leading expert in the field, and it was cited by top quality sources, such as "Co-Belligerency", Yale Journal of International Law (2017). Another peer-reviewed source also cites the same SPS as follows:
 * "For example, the claim that congressional authorization to use force against an enemy includes authorization to use force against that enemy’s co-belligerents is based essentially on one precedent. See Ryan Goodman, Debunking the “Vichy France” Argument on Authorization to Use Force Against Co-Belligerents, JUST SECURITY (Nov. 17, 2014, 10:37 AM), http://just-security.org/17516/debunking-vichy-france-argument-authorization-force-co-belligerents/. And,in fact, the Vichy France precedent is particularly telling, as there is no indication that any lawyers were present in making the decision whether the attack on Vichy France was consistent with congressional authorization, rendering its use as evidence of legal authority particularly doubtful."


 * The source that is being used by top quality peer-reviewed sources deserves a very careful; attention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , "Do we agree that the infobox should contain only uncontroversial statements, and all controversial content should be moved to the article's body?". but who decides what's controversial? "This article is not about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy, but about their formal military alliance. In connection to that, can we call those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis "the Axis co-belligerents"?" When would you say Axis were created? The infobox states 1936... if we want to change the date I'd suggest a separate section for this item only. "Can semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents?" I don't see why not? "What is a threshold for hostilities scale (in terms of duration and the number or troops) that warrants inclusion?" I dn't think we (the Wikipedia editors) should define such a scale. If no reliable source does it, then we should simply stick to the simple definitions of concepts and/or reliable sources that use discussed terms. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As usual, we decide what is controversial by analysing sources. A typical example is Vichy: per one source, for the first time it was called the Axis co-belligerent in 2005, and the conclusion about co-belligerency was made to justify modern US-military actions, and it expresses US viewpoint (because the authors were working for the US governnent), and that view was not widely cited, and it was criticized by one expert, that criticism was supported by others. That is quite sufficient to call it a controversial case, per our policy.


 * As I already explained, I was wrong, and it seems that the Axis is not the same as the Tripartite Pact. However, if the Axis was a loose and poorly defined formation before 1940, would it be correct to speak about "Axis co-belligerence" before all major actors joined the Tripartite pact? Did China fight against the Axis in 1937, or just against Japan? Did USSR annexed the territory of the Axis state (Romania), or just Romania? Did USSR fight against the Axis at Khasan and Khalkhin Gol, or just against Japan? And so on. The


 * Actually, the question of threshold is strongly linked to the question of controversy, so I realised it would be incorrect to separate them. So the question is: what is a degree of controversy that precludes inclusion in the infobox?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

commnet - I think all of these problems is dated back from description in Allies of World War II and Axis power. Yes. "the former Axis power and Co-belligerents" in Allies article, and "Co-belligerents" in naviagtionbox of Axis power. But if you see both articles, there is no such subtitles called "Co-belligerents" except for Kingdom of Italy in Allies article. But, Italy can be categorized as "former Axis power" so it actually means "there is no such category of co-belligerent". So my suggestion is this.


 * We should put a country by articles of Allies of World War II and Axis power.
 * Co-belligerents is not used in both articles so we should avoid that word.
 * Controversial countries should not be included until users agree to put. If we starts putting those countries, it makes matter worse not better

-- Wendylove (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @Wendylove - What countries are "controversial countries"? Also, why we should avoid the word "co-belligerents" if RS use that word? Quote from "Problems of Communism, Volume 39, Issue 6" page 107 - "As a co- belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of western and central Poland" -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I can answer you by giving my opinions of "Co-belligerents". First, "those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis" or "semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents" one. I think we shouldn't divide countries like that. After all, they were all parts of Axis or Allies. And most of countries according to those criteria are "puppet state" or "government-in-exile". And also, "co-belligerents" are not using broad in WW2 military infobox and usually show contradiction. I think we should talk about that "co-belligerent" issue in other section, because I have lots of things to tell for. -- Wendylove (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Wendylove well, sorry, I disagree, but I respect your position. Can I ask you to halt changing other articles until we reach some agreement here? Thanks - GizzyCatBella  🍁  06:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will stop abput my edition on other pages until users agree. I hope we will get agreement which many can understand. Thanks for listening my views. -- Wendylove (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul,
 * to judge what would be controversial, I have to know which instance we are discussing, and it is really confirmed to be controversial, maybe
 * you should again specify which entity ou'd refer, the infobox e.g. does not contain any entry that would be not engaged after 1936
 * the same....many users move uncertain in such fields, exatly we should know which entity you refer, and when
 * formally there would not be a treshold, but again, here a general approach without knowing the exact subject will likely to fail
 * - about co-belligerency, I already posted above in the Vichy France section.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC))


 * KIENGIR, I deliberately avoid discussing concrete cases, because the only way to create a neutral content is to agree about some general criteria, and only after that check if each concrete case meets them. To create rules for pushing some specific case would be a totally flawed approach.
 * I do not want to specify anything, I am just asking what we consider the Axis (in terms of its composition and timeframe): thus, if the Axis is the military alliance, can we speak about the Axis before that alliance was signed? Thus, was a declaration of a war on Germany in September 1939 a declaration of a war on the Axis, or just on Germany? Can Japan be considered an Axis power by September, 1939? What about Romania or Hungary? And so on.


 * If there would be no threshold, why Vichy France was not considered a co-belligerent of the Axis until Bradley&Goldsmith claimed that in 2005 to justify some modern military actions of US? BTW, taking into account that Bradley&Goldsmith reflect a US-centric (and contested) viewpoint, it would be non-neutral to include Vichy into infobox unless evidences are provided that non-US scholarly community share that view. If no such evidences are provided, Vichy should be excluded from the infobox, and we should agree that some co-belligerency threshold does exist, at least, in WWII related literature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The infobox should not be a database of countries. It's not a table meant to exhaustively list every country and where they fit into the conflict. The infobox should summarize the key facts. It doesn't need to list, at all, all of the countries who supported or opposed in some way; just the key players. If you sat someone down to explain what the Axis powers were, and you said, "The Axis powers were the countries of...", whatever follows is what should be in the infobox. You probably wouldn't mention countries like Thailand or Iraq in that sentence. Levivich harass/hound 19:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be a "databse" either. I do think it should include the most important cases which are discussed in sources. Like the Soviet Union. Likewise, just because something is "controversial" does not mean we should omit it from the infobox. The very fact that something is "controversial" here means it's notable and pertinent and is something that we should let our readers know. Omitting controversy isn't actually NPOV. Is there a way to include the controversy while noting that it's "controversial"?  Volunteer Marek   15:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * My opinion can be found back in Archive 8 (Sept. 2020) and in this edit. I am also in complete agreement with 's comment at Talk:Tripartite Pact. In direct response to Paul Siebert's question: we should not be weighting contributions to determine inclusion, which requires an arbitrary cutoff. Srnec (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Right now my position is that IF we have a "co-belligerents" section in the infobox then the USSR most def belongs in there. I'm still mulling over the question of whether such a section should be in the infobox.  Volunteer Marek  15:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul, despite I don't see other way, there may be so many unexpected whereabouts that just theoretically put delimiters will ultimately fail and the outcome will be as well debated, if we see al the set of variables, then we may easier construct a delimiter (despite in theory you have right).(KIENGIR (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC))


 * As a first step, I propose to discuss criteria for co-belligerence. We should not be taking a formally-defined category and placing things in it ourselves, at least not in an infobox where there is little room for explanations. The only valid argument for including anything under that term is if someone can demonstrate that that term is widely used to refer to their involvement in the war in reliable sources. I would strenuously oppose including anything in the infobox that cannot be cited to multiple high-quality, mainstream sources using the term "co-belligerent" specifically. If the term is not widely used, then the infobox should not use it either. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2021 (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)

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)
 * , 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&#124; reply here 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In her "Co-Belligerency", Yale Journal of International Law (2017), Rebecca Ingber cites Bradley&Goldsmith, and puts that article into a proper context. It says that Bradley&Goldsmith (who worked for the US government) wrote their work to justify US action against the states that supported Al Qaida, and they used Vichy as a precedent. However, according that that article, there are serious problem with their arguments, and this York University School of Law web site provides a convincing counter-arguments against Vichy's co-belligerence. Importantly, according to the NYU school of law article, Bradley&Goldsmith were originators of the idea of Vichy co-belligerency, therefore, we can conclude that that view didn't exist before that date, and, most likely, it still reflects mostly US view. Therefore, Vichy France should be removed from the infobox, and its potential co-belligerency should be discussed in a separate section devoted to controversial cases.
 * Interestingly, although Bradley&Goldsmith's article is being widely cited, majority references are not in a context of Vichy France (only 13 documents from that list mention Vichy), which means Vichy France is not a focus of that article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe the issue is controversial, but per the mother article's definiton (co-belligerence), certainly there was a period when she was like that.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC))


 * Wikipedia is not a RS. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, but terminologies and articles should be consisntent in it.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC))


 * AFAIK, Vichy never attacked the Allies, they were just fighting back, which is consistent with a behaviour of truly neutral states. Anyway, I got no reasonable counterarguments, so I remove Vichy. Please, do not restore it without providing better sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And I have reverted your edit. Ignoring arguments from other people that do not fit in your POV is not the way consensus works. The Banner  talk 18:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I saw no arguments, and, importantly, no sources. Per WP:ONUS, responsibility is on those who adds a contested material. please, self-revert addition of poorly sourced material that is contested by reliable sources and is definitely non-neutral. If no arguments, supported by reliable sources, will follow in next week, I am going to revert you.
 * In addition, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is a personal attack. I suggest you either provide evidences or to refrain form accusing me of POV pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I see no counterarguments in one week, so I remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, it has already been removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Poland section
There is no justification for an entire section in this article, an article about the Axis, about Poland, which was not an Axis country. This article is already far too long (it needs to be 80kb of prose tops and it's more than 100kb) and a detail analysis of Polish-German relations is clearly WP:UNDUE especially as the important points are already summarised in the sections about Germany and the M-R pact. I entirely agree with Volunteer Marek's deletion. The above poll has already been superseded by dropping "co-belligerents" as a class for policy-based reasons and is entirely moot as a result. My personal view is that it was basically trolling by trying to include Poland, a country that no reliable source describes as a German ally in the relevant period, much less an Axis member. FOARP (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes and now we have IP hopping anon users using proxies to try and edit war it into the article.  Volunteer Marek   18:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I too agree with that (see my justification in discussion above). My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we also just say the poll is moot? It's become clear during the discussion that "co-belligerent" was not a useful category, still less one supported by the sources, and it's been removed as a result. The entire thesis of the poll is "if you include the USSR you have to include Poland" based on the idea that they were both "co-belligerents" but this is simply illogical - those are different cases and the sources tell us quite different things about them - and pointless now we've dropped the idea that "co-belligerents" were an important class of country. Ultimately it was just an attempt to circumvent WP:V and WP:UNDUE using a local consensus. I can see shortening this article by quite a lot (it needs to get down to ~80kb of prose at most) but in any event there's always going to be a section on the M-R pact since it was so key to the development of the Axis. In contrast Poland was only ever important to the Axis during the 1936-45 period as a target for invasion, and this is already adequately covered under war-goals. FOARP (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Every country should be discussed separately because all of them are different. For example, the MR pact was signed between Nazi Germany and USSR (not Poland), and it was USSR who attacked Poland (not the other way around). No, I do not see how this page can be reduced. One should assume that a reader does not know the subject. For example, if country X (like Hungary) collaborated with Nazi in extermination of Jews during the Holocaust, while not being a territory directly occupied by Nazi like Poland, such info should arguably remain. Even Iraq belongs here. I should say this page is in good condition (for a non-expert) and very informative. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Every country should be discussed separately" - this is an article about the Axis powers, not about "every country". There were 40+ countries in the world at the time of WW2 and I cannot take seriously a proposal to include separate sections on all of them in an article that is already far too long. Occupied Poland is discussed under the relevant section regarding occupied territories, the M-R pact is discussed under the relevant section, Germany's territorial ambitions against Poland are discussed under the section regarding their war goals. What's left, that isn't WP:UNDUE, to discuss?
 * Remember also that there are many other articles on Wiki where the subject matter that a minority of people seem to want to include here under a dedicated section about Poland is already covered in depth. There is no justification to include it here when it is at best peripheral/WP:UNDUE to the actual subject of the article, which is (to re-iterate) already far too long.
 * "I should say this page is in good condition (for a non-expert) and very informative." - this article is rated "C" and even this may be rating it too high. It should be a GA, but it can't be one as long as people insist on pointless edit-warring to put the countries they want to portray as "bad" into it. "I think it's interesting" is a classic example of an argument to avoid on Wiki. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources pointing to Polish-German cooperation after the creation of the Axis, see this perfectly reliable mainstream source: "Poland and Germany conspired jointly to destroy Czechoslovakia", "Poland's co-operation with Germany in the Czechoslovakian crisis became clearly defined after the tension of May 1938", "Poland and Germany committed themselves to the break-up of the Czech state and Polish territorial aims appeared to be accepted." (p. 855) "Poland's ostensible neutrality, but  in fact direct commitment to Germany during the latter stages of the Czechoslovak  crisis" (p. 856). Of course, the section should also point that this collaboration was rather limited in scale, and it ended by spring 1939, but this can't be just ignored.Anonimu (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Writing an entire section based on the views of a single author, and on the basis of limited collaboration, is clearly WP:UNDUE. Moreover this is an article about the Axis powers, we already have articles on German-Polish relations and so-forth. Additionally, reviews of article by the author of the article you linked to were quite scathing about their analysis, e.g.:
 * Pease, N (1988) in Slavic Rev. 47(3): 544–45, wrote: "[Prażmowska] appears imperfectly acquainted with the history of interwar Poland and offers a number of dubious characterizations of its government and policies, seemingly borrowed from an uncritical acceptance of the hostile judgments of official postwar Polish historiography."
 * Biskupski, MB (1992) in Am. Hist. Rev. 97(4): 1210, wrote: "Prażmowska has used Polish archival or published materials sparingly and a number of errors result. In general, the Polish side of the picture is weakly developed."
 * Wandycz, PS (1988) in Russian Rev. 47(3): 343–44, wrote: "[Prażmowska's] apparent inability to use French materials may be a bit of a handicap. Worse still, [she] seems unaware of the existence of numerous recent works directly relevant for her subject […]. Her overcritical assessment of Polish policies toward the Soviet union seems to stem from a limited knowledge of the subject."
 * Cienciala, AM (1997) in J. Milit. Hist. 61(1): 188–89, wrote: "[Prażmowska's] evaluation of the Polish government's policies distorts both the overall picture and the issues involved […] It is a pity that Ms Prażmowska used her considerable scholarly abilities to produce such a lop-sided study."
 * The article clearly does not represent a consensus position amongst historians. FOARP (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * EDIT: this from a reviewer on another Prazmowska work covering similar ground also indicates why they may not be a reliable source -
 * "Czechoslovakia did not "snatch" Teschen in 1921 (p. 18) but in 1919; the declaration of non-aggression between Poland and Germany was not a treaty (p. 24); Rydz-Smigfy was never chief-of-staff (p. 24) but commander-in-chief designate; the Sikorski government was sworn in on September 30, 1939, and not on October 3 (p. 67); the Soviet-German accord was signed on September 28, not 29, 1939 (p. 67); Kramar was in an Austrian prison for a good part of the war and thus could not have been in Petrograd in 1916 building Czech legions (p. 75); "German" Reichsrat (p. 77) means presumably the Reichsrat in Vienna; "Versailles Conference" (p. 77) is a misnomer for the Paris Peace Conference; Slovakia was a German satellite but not a protectorate - whetherspelled with a small or a capital P (pp. 84, 117, 131); Alexander was not King of Serbia but Regent (p. 195); Bukovina never "belonged to Hungary" (p. 202); there was no Franco-Romanian military convention (p. 113);Tilea was not ambassador (pp. 109-118) because Romania had no Embassy in London. He is described correctly as "minister" in the index; the third partition of Poland occurred in 1795, not 1793 (p. 125); Petrula is an evident typo for Petlura (p. 130); Poland did not propose a preventive war to France in 1936 (p. 148); the coup in Belgrade took place on March 27 and not 28, 1941 (p. 203); Zog was not married to a "Habsburg princess" (p. 205) but to the Hungarian countess Apponyi; given geographic realities, Romania could not possibly have gained "Macedonian regions" (p. 209) after the First World War; Lithuania was not a kingdom (p. 214) when it formed a union with Poland (p. 214); in fact, its grand duke became Poland's king; the Armistice was signed on November 11, not 9, 1918 (p. 218); Zeligowski took Wilno (Vilnius) in October 1920, not 1919 (p. 211), and did not offer the town to the Poles but made it a capital of Central Lithuania; Voldemaras and Smetona were not "two officers" (p. 222) but seasoned Lithuanian politicians; Polish attempts to resolve the problems with Lithuania took place mostly in the late 1920s and not 1930s (p. 229); the three Baltic states did not become "German Protectorates" in 1941 (p. 237) but parts of the "Ostland." The author rightly sought to include diacritical marks, but her efforts are marred by some inconsistencies and small mistakes. It would have been more logical to use the anglicized Joseph or the Polish Jozef for Beck - Josef is neither....
 * ...Oversimplifications, slips and errors were bound to occur but Prazmowska could have been more careful in reducing them to a minimum. Although there is some interesting material in this book, the reader should be on guard and not accept all the statements and interpretations uncritically."
 * I think we need a better source for this considering how error-prone Prazmowska appears to be.FOARP (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the reviewers appear to dispute the German-Polish collaboration. Regarding the "scathing reviews", it's probably not by chance that all are by Polish authors at a time when nationalism was at a high tide all across Eastern Europe.Anonimu (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do note that none of the reviews you mention are of the article I quoted, but of other works by the same author, and are not scathing:
 * Nease, P reviews the book "Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, 1939" and has nothing to say about Polish-German collaboration or the lack thereof; overall review is mixed: "This information is definitely worth having for the judicious reader willing to sort the volume's virtues from its blemish".
 * Biskupski, MB reviews the same book, does not address Polish-German collaboration or the lack thereof; overall review is rather positive: "Even if we were convinced of it before, the demonstration is edifying".
 * Wandycz, PS reviews the same book, does not address Polish-German collaboration or the lack thereof; overall review is rather positive:"By and large this is a valuable and useful volume which can be read with profit by the historian and the interested general reader alike"
 * Cienciala, AM reviews the book "Britain and Poland, 1939-1943: The Betrayed Ally". Since the book covers Polish policy after Germany invaded Poland, the review does not address a Polish-German collaboration that happened outside the timeframe of the book. The review is indeed rather negative
 * Please don't misrepresent sources anymore. Thank you.Anonimu (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And here's what some other sources say:
 * "Even Beck's unpleasant performance at the time of Munich was not planned in concert with the Germans... He did not like Czechoslovakia, but he did not plot its destruction." - Henry L. Roberts, 'The Diplomacy of Colonel Beck', in Gordon A. Craig and Felix Gilbert (eds.), The Diplomats 1919-1939 (Princeton, 1960), pp.603, 611
 * "....it is clear that the Polish government wanted to prevent a German seizure of the whole of Czechoslovakia if, as they expected, the Western powers would not defend it." - Cienciala, A. M. (1999). The Munich crisis of 1938: Plans and strategy in Warsaw in the context of the western appeasement of Germany. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 10(2-3), 57-58.
 * So it appears that not only is Prazmowska considered inaccurate, but also that a number of historians flat-out disagree with the idea that there was any actual Polish-German co-operation over the dismembering of Czechoslovakia, and that the Poles did not want to "destroy Czechoslovakia" for the palpably obvious reason that Poland would be next. EDIT: this should be fairly obvious, but neither Pease nor Roberts are Polish surnames! Cienciala was an American citizen.
 * Based on the above it's clear that the views of Pramowska are WP:FRINGE and writing an entire section of this already-too-long article based on them would be WP:UNDUE. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As show above, Prazmowska is not considered inaccurate: though some of her details appear to be mistaken, overall opinion is mixed to positive. It is not FRINGE by any standard. Indeed the very fact that historians disagree on the role of German-Polish collaboration justifies a separate section in this article, indicating exactly that. Cienciala's argument sounds exactly like Soviet Union's claim justifying her invasion of Poland, but we can add it to the article if you insist.Anonimu (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I already expressed my opinion on the above RfC, and I maintain: majority of RfC's participants just express their own opinia without providing any sources. Wikipedia must reflect what RS say, and readers are not interested to know our opinia. Poland section should not be in this article. If her collaboration with Germany regarding Teschen is a reason, then how do we approach Vienna awards? These two events remind partition of Czechoslovakia, and Hungary (an Axis state), assisted by Germany and Italy, took a territory of another state (Romania), which happened to be ... the Axis state too. Clearly, Hungary were collaborating with the two main Axis states, and Romania did not (at least, it "collaborated" in an opposite sense, by ceding her territory). Meanwhile, both states are considered the Axis state. How can we explain this paradox?

The explanation is as follows: before 1940, we cannot speak about the Axis as some well defined political alliance, so we cannot speak about any collaboration by any third state with the Axis as whole. In contrast, bilateral relatioships and agreements between any third state and a future Axis state cannot and should not be discussed in this article. Let me give one more example.

During triple negotiations (UK-France-USSR), one of the main issue was guaranties for third states in case of German aggression. The Entente states (UK&France) were discussing with the Soviet Union if it can provide guaranties for several states, including Poland and Romania. Note, Poland and Romania were being discussed in absolutely the same context during those negotiations. Now answer the following questions: (i) if Poland's collaboration with the (future) Axis was significant enough to deserve attention in this article, how could UK&France discuss guarantees for Poland against German aggression? (ii) if Poland and Romania were approached in the same way by the participants of the Triple negotiations, doesn't it mean that Romania was not considered as the Axis state by them either?

The answers to these question is obvious: (i) Poland was never considered as "the Axis" ally by Entente leaders and the USSR, and by adding Poland we just add more sensationalism to Wikipedia, thereby discrediting it. I am going to resist to it by any means, including arbitration (and I will succeed, for my viewpoint is based on what majority RS say). (ii) By mid 1939, Romania was not the member/ally of the Axis either, and the reason is that the Axis was in a state of formation, it was a loose alliance, and it is deeply incorrect to speak about "the counties that colluded with the Axis" before 1940.

My conclusion is: all countries that had bilateral agreements with some (future) Axis members before 1940 should be removed from the article, and that is a good chance to make it more logical, focused, non-sensationalist and readable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No Poland Section - The view that Poland was in some way a German ally during the relevant period of this article is clearly a WP:FRINGE view based on a review of the sources (particularly the Cienciala and Roberts articles discussed above which flat-out disagree with the idea that Poland collaborated with Germany or wanted to see Czechoslovakia destroyed), writing an entire section based on it would be WP:UNDUE. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes to Poland Section - The view that Poland colluded with Germany in their dismemberment of Czechoslovakia is an established historical view (see Prazmowska article in particular, a reputed scholar with rather positive reviews of her works on Polish history). The view is not universal however, as shown in Roberts' article, and naturally is especially controversial for Polish historians who have to go at great length to justify the German-Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia (see Cienciala claiming Poland invaded Czechoslovakia to "save" it from total German occupation). A dedication section must thus cover German-Polish collaboration and different views on the issue.Anonimu (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Collusion with Germany in 1939 ≠ collusion with the Axis. Britain colluded with Germany too (in 1937), that does not deserve inclusion into this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Prazmowska (the reviews for whom consisted of paragraph-long lists of her errors, and tell you not to take what she says at face-value) is not enough to sustain the view that there was any such collaboration. Cienciala was an American, as was Roberts. Cienciala also didn't say that Poland invaded Czechoslovakia to save it, instead she was talking about annexation/partition of Czechoslovakia simply not being a goal. I WP:AGF but this Yes !vote is obviously not well-reasoned. Paul Siebert is correct that applying the same logic ends up with every country that had relations with an Axis country being drawn into this article. FOARP (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Prazmowska's reviews, as pointed above, are generally mixed to positive. One Polish reviewer did some nit-picking and highlighted quite a few spelling errors and some lack of attention to detail, i.e. mostly things that have to do with editor stuff, not content. Most of the reviewers (including many of Polish origin) do not dispute her view on Polish-German collaboration in the attack against Czechoslovakia. Cienciala, as indicated by our article, was a Polish-American, and she literally says Poland invaded Czechoslovakia (the same time as Germany) because "the Polish government wanted to prevent a German seizure of the whole of Czechoslovakia" (I assume good faith and take the quote as you presented it, I did not check it in the original source). The discussion of the German-Polish collaboration in invading a third country in 1938 warrants a short paragraph under the heading of bilateral agreements with the Axis powers. Indeed, if consensus is to remove such bilateral agreements from this article (as Paul Siebert suggests), the section about Poland would be removed as well.Anonimu (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So, "Polish" sources aren't reliable except when they agree with you. And, indeed, "Polish" people like Prazmowska aren't described as "Polish" unless you want to discredit them based on their ethnicity. Cienciala is simply not saying what you think she is saying - she is talking about the over-arching goals of Poland, which was not (contrary to Prazmowska) to "destroy" Czechoslovakia. This is clear if you look at the section the quote comes from:
 * "A good illustration of the early stages of Beck's 'Third Europe' project is to be found in the instructions given on 18 April 1938 by Jan Szembek to the new Polish ambassador to Romania, Roger Raczynski. Szembek said he did not believe the Western powers would defend Czechoslovakia and told the ambassador to work for a Romanian-Hungarian understanding, saying a new power system needed to emerge in the region between Germany and Russia. From other documents it is clear that the Polish government wanted to prevent a German seizure of the whole of Czechoslovakia if, as they expected, the Western powers would not defend it."
 * Where is the evidence of this supposed German-Polish collaboration against Czechoslovakia? Certainly not in the above statement which instead says the exact opposite - they did not want Germany on their southern frontiers. Instead Poland was working with other countries (Romania/Hungary, both at that point not Axis countries) to thwart Germany. FOARP (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is nothing specifically Polish about it, in the late 80s and through the 90s historiography all over Eastern Europe went into a hyper-nationalist mode (e.g. in Romania they were praising Nazi-aligned dictator Antonescu and were denying the Romanian participation in the Holocaust). Of course, not everybody went with it, but those who didn't became victim of vicious attacks by the nationalist bloc.
 * Regarding Cienciala, I was working with the quote you provided above; since it was incomplete my judgement seems a bit off-mark when compared with the full quote you posted now. It should be noted however that Cienciala describes intentions, while Prazmowska describes actual events (comparatively, Prazmowska also describes the belief of Polish govt officials that Poland will support Germany in an anti-Soviet war; they evidently did not have the occasion to act on this belief, though they did act against their intention in the case of Czechoslovakia).Anonimu (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Prazmowska describes her characterisation of events, that characterisation is not adopted by other reliable sources and is indeed opposed by them (e.g., Cienciala and Roberts). Again, it is notable that Cienciala, an American of Polish ethnicity, is "Polish" and "nationalist" in your analysis, but Prazmowska, a Briton of Polish ethnicity, is considered neither. FOARP (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There's already an RFC on this page about this. Levivich harass/hound 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The poll is moot because "co-belligerent" is not a useful class of country supported by reliable sources in the context of an article about the Axis powers. It attempted to connect issues that are not connected using the idea of "co-belligerence". FOARP (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right about "co-belligerent" and current consensus appears to agree with that. However, the RfC also included a question about sections in the article.Anonimu (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sections proposed in the RFC were also predicated on "co-belligerent" being a relevant class of country. FOARP (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not predicated on that, it's not moot, and you don't get to decide that an RFC is moot, especially since you're an involved participant. You're forking the discussion, and you've already removed the section from the article (while the RfC is still open), all of which is disruptive editing. Please correct this. Levivich harass/hound 15:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Look up and see the discussion that followed, particularly the evidenced consensus that formed around "co-belligerents" not being a useful class. The RFC was a troll-poll started by an editor presently blocked for violating WP:3RR, which tried to daisy-chain unrelated issues, and in which no real evidence was cited for any position.
 * But fine, if you want to bring in an uninvolved closer to close-out that RFC let's see what they say. My guess is it's going to be *Pizza Guy walks into place on fire.gif*. PS - I find the objection to forking the discussion kind of strange given that you did exactly that above when you opened voting for removing co-belligerents from the infobox. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Returning to the topic of Beck at Munich, GROMADA, THADDEUS V. “JOSEPH BECK IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT POLISH HISTORIOGRAPHY.” The Polish Review, vol. 26, no. 3, 1981, pp. 68-71 is a really interesting reference that reviews a number of historians writing on Beck's role in the Munich crisis. Even including the worst of Beck's critics amongst those reviewed by Gromada, Henryk Batkowski, none of them endorses the idea that Beck was collaborating with the Germans. The worst they accuse Beck of is being "anti-Soviet" (which is hardly a surprise). Even Batkowski recognised that Beck was essentially anti-German, seeking co-operation with Romania/Hungary, not Germany. Gromada himself endorses H.L. Roberts position (i.e., Beck was not seeking Czechoslovakia's destruction). None of them agrees with Prazmowska's characterisation of events, which is clearly WP:FRINGE. FOARP (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's another one: WEINBERG, GERHARD L. “GERMAN FOREIGN POLICY AND POLAND, 1937-38.” The Polish Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 1975, p. 16:
 * "There was no formal German-Polish agreement on this subject [i.e., Czechoslovakia] at any time, though there is evidence that in return for German agreement to Poland's annexation of Danzig there could have been one".
 * Again, this points to Prazmowska's idea that Poland and Germany were actively collaborating being a WP:FRINGE idea. Weinberg is very clear that there was no such formal agreement. At most Weinberg speculates that there could have been such a deal if Germany had agreed to an annexation of Danzig by Poland - something that obviously didn't happen as Danzig remained an international city. FOARP (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2021
Fix typo from: "In contrast to the Allies, were no three-way summit meetings..." To: "In contrast to the Allies, there were no three-way summit meetings..." 47.232.152.67 (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Asartea  Talk  undefined  Contribs  15:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

vittorio veneto and littorio
only the Veneto was at the battle of cape spartivento, thus the photo has a wrong caption Suppongoche (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

perhaps the above is not clear, let me rewrite. The photo clearly shows the Veneto and the Littorio (only these had 6 guns ahead). The caption says that this is the Veneto at Spartivento, but the Littorio was in repair after Taranto, so cannot be this battle. Indeed the"intrinsic caption" (I do not know the exact term) says that are Veneto and Littorio in WW II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suppongoche (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for bringing this up, . Your ping of didn't go through (pings only work if the post is signed with four tildes ~), so I'm re-pinging Peacemaker. In this imgur gallery (not a reliable source), the other ship is identified as the Italian battleship Giulio Cesare, but I cannot find a reliable source for this photograph (I'm not good with ships research). Levivich harass/hound 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably Operation Vigorous. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)