Talk:Axis powers/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

RfC on infobox

Should the infobox be slimmed down, as in this edit? Srnec (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• The rule for inclusion that I applied was "Did they sign a peace treaty with the Allies?" This excludes co-belligerents like the Soviet Union, Iraq and Danzig as well as puppet states like Slovakia and Croatia. There is no need to separate the belligerents based on when or whether they signed the Tripartite Pact, which is not the defining feature of the Axis. As the first sentence indicates, the only thing they had in common was that they "fought in World War II against the Allies". Signing a peace treaty with the Allies is proof that a state was Axis. Note that while this proposal would "remove" the Croatia issue, that is not the only reason to prefer it. I wrote that "I'd prefer a plain list of 'Axis' powers" back in archive 7 when discussing the USSR. Srnec (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Seems a little excessive, but I would support an intermediate edit. Personally, I think the distinction of when and by which instrument parties joined as axis powers/co-belligerents is content that is useful to the reader (especially those with limited knowledge of WWII) at a glance. Thus I can't see how stripping that summarized context out of the infobox is a step in the right direction. I also find the argument that "signing a peace treaty with the Allies is proof that a state was Axis" has more than a little bit of an WP:OR streak to it, and is not consistent with the WP:WEIGHT of historical research to the extent I am familiar with it as regards what defined an Axis power as opposed to a state that was aligned with one in some capacity at some stage in the war. So I'd just as soon those list remain more extensive and delineated. All of that said, I think the footnotes are excessive: infoboxes are meant to summarize the broadest details of the content of the article in a fashion that is as brief as it can be while remaining salient; a more nuanced discussion of the particular can and should be reserved for the main body of the prose, and needn't be repeated in the infobox to break down the particulars of the box's own content. There are additionally WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues with all of this small print. So, in short keep the more fullsome and subcategorized list of belligerents, but remove the subnotes. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly oppose I would axe the "Co-belligerent states" section. Most sources on the Axis powers do not define the co-belligerent states as being Axis powers (for instance, I am not finding sources that say this with regard to Danzig, and with regard to Finland it is a matter of some controversy), so this part of the infobox has the potential to confuse or mislead readers. However, per Snow's comment I do not think that most reliable sources define Axis powers based on peace treaties. Therefore, I support continuing to organize the template based on the Tripartiate pact signatories. I do not have an opinion on the subnotes. Slovakia should certainly stay in the template because (until 1944) it was not a puppet state and joined Hitler's war more or less voluntarily. Reliable sources state that it was one of the Axis powers. (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• No, more details the best.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC))
• Possibly but prefer 2017 version [Here]... It gives more detail and better information for the reader. It was a long standing version changed without an RfC I believe. How about this. I agree with KIENGIR that more details is best. Surpising as I had the impression before they were for short hand “simplified” names instead of the actual full names of the entities. As for going by signers of the tripartite agreement this is also kind of an WP:OR. Also it misleads the readers as Slovakia and The Independent State of Croatia were Axis puppets installed by German or for NDH German and Italy. The current infobox implies equal weight to the puppet and their masters as well as other states such as other existing states like Romania and Bulgaria that aligned themselves with the Axis Powers, they weren’t invaded and puppet regimes put in place. The reader should know the difference. Of course a puppet state will be aligned with the master state that installed it. And they answer to that master that here bing the axis powers. Slovakia and NDH were aligned and fought for the Axis side but were not “powers”. NDH is regarded as “what is no more than a puppet Axis regime” even looking at the History Channel website. So to call it an Axis Power seems quite POV push even if inadvertently. (Even though the NDH regime was eager to follow Hitler’s racial persecution laws and then some and had autonomy to an extent.)At least when looking up Axis Powers in Encyclopedic Brittanica and other such resources. I don’t see them regarded as such. Which is pov not neutral. Long story short: And so I think the infobox should go back to its previous version listing all collaborating entities. As it was [Here] and that the RfC should include this as an option. More details is best KIENGER points out and might agree with this option. And would make sure readers see all associated with the Axis powers. It isn’t long and seems fine on my screen. I don’t understand why it was changed and decided that Tripartite Signers defines Axis Powers. It seems kinda cherry-picking. Again, more details would be better. Else I would support Srnec’s new more simplified version as it address the issue with undue WP:WEIGHT equalizing puppet states to their master states as would be the perception of the readers. Either of the two I am fine with. This is why I really dislike infoboxes in general. OyMosby (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As pointed out in the Tripartite pact talk, establishment history of countries are not relevant or a base of any distinguishment, Slovakia and Croatia are equal partners, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC))

That is a point of view you hold, yes. But that doesn’t make it a matter of fact. It is a base of distinguishment. It also doesn’t address my other points in my post. But as was pointed out in the Tripartite pact talk, a puppet state is not equal to the master state. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a puppet. A puppet state is not the same is an existing independent state such as Bulgaria, German or Romania. I don’t get how that can possibly be argued. Otherwise NDH would’t be dubbed “axis puppet state” So I don’t understand your view here. Slovakia and NDH were not equal partners to Germany nor functioned freely like Romania. NDH being created from German-Italian occupied land is a differentiator absolutely. A puppet doesn’t make the choice, the master finds whoever will align with them and install them in power such as Hitler did with Ante Pavelic and his Ustashe terrorist organization. From a Croatian Ultranationalist POV NDH would be dubbed a legitimate official Croatia (as apposed to a meere puppet pretending to be it’s own country) as I’ve seen rightwingers try to do, but most RS don’t label it so. Also Federal State of Croatia was not part of the pack along with different borders. So saying Croatia isn’t specific enough, etc. Again all pointed out in the Tripartite pact talk page. It is a base of distinguishment when another country baring a similar name exists later on particularly with different borders. As another editor @Peacemaker67: explained as well there. No point re-explaining all this here. It’s all on that talk page. And I do not wish to do reruns of past debates which had no conclusion. The focus is what version info box is best. Ultimately I mentioned that being you agree with more details being better, I see no reason for not reverting to the original infobox [Here]. I also find it amusing that the infobox map doesn’t show NDH as an axis power but as (colonies or co-belligerents) so it seems this was all understood for quite a while. OyMosby (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I won't repeat the discussion made already in the Tripartite pact talk (in this we agree, despite you did again go to details), so to your recent argumentation, which I disagree and reject the answer is there.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC))

Again I was agreeing with you that more detail is better and that I think the original infobox that I linked was better detailed. You chose to reply about an old discussion to begin with, to be fair. That was not my main point in my vote explanation. I already said we will not see eye to eye on the matter of state naming and who is equal to who. That isn’t the main point in my vote explanation though. I didn’t repeat details in our past conversation. My “recent argumentation” is new not the same as the other talk. Not even 5% of it. So I don’t understand what comes across as a snide remark of “despite you did again go to details”. As I haven’t repeated myself. Most of my reply is about OR, Weight, the original infobox, me agreeing that the more details the better, the other user Peacemaker agreeing on the name, and how Croatian Nationalists like to view NDH as a real country (and some still think it exists). My replies are detailed rather than a short sentence as a reply as you did so others know what my reasoning is. However you replied in a “matter of fact” tone as if that talk page came to the same conclusion as you, when really you simply stated your pov not a definitive fact and I stated my pov on the matter. But rhat doesn’t explain what version of the infobox is to be used which is my main point of debate. My focus is the infobox not the Slovakia NDH naming debate from while back. I brought it up as one of many different points is all for the infobox change. It isn’t the ONLY one. Let’s be civil now, KIENGIR. I meant not to antagonize a rerun of an old discussion. You rejecting my proposal of going back to the old infobox is not answered on the Tripartite Talk page. What do you mean? OyMosby (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand and notice everything, even if I am concise, and the repetitive content was much higher in percentage. No civility harmed, again, discussion about this took place in the Tripartite talk, any of my answers are there related in details, I just summarized here my point shortly.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2020 (

Not really that much higher but okay. Now that that’s been established repeatedly. How about your take on the other 95% of my vote comment not related to the Tripartite TalK Page discussion? The Weight, the original infobox, me agreeing that the more details the better, etc, The actual main point of my vote and this RfC? Would the 2017 version be the best settlement? If there are mistake what are they since we both agree having more infomercial is better else why not just list Germany, Japan and Italy if we want to keep refining the list of possible mistakes as Srnec mentioned in their proposed version?OyMosby (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

UTC))

I disagree these percentages, as I reflected. The old-detailed infobox, even by correcting errors was rejected to be re-added repeatedly, I don't support just listing the the three you mentioned, btw. current infobox is flawless.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC))

That’s fine, we can agree to disagree. They aren’t meant to be taking literally but that majority of my comment is about the infobox and manny other points unrelated to the tripartite discussions. To find an actual number percentage is irrelevant. But again not the point and was talked about ad nauseam. My comment on using just the three axis powers was sarcastic to make a point of the ever increasing reduction of information. I’d rather stick to talking about the RfC though. On your talk page however you said you would be for the 2017 version of the infobox granted we fix the dates which I would be for as well. If you think more information is better, than how would the current infobox be flawless as it leaves out a lot? Also it was a small minority of editors that rejected the old version. I don’t think we should be scared off by that. OyMosby (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I am better "suffering ad nauseam", I do it maybe if I would be not understood properly. However, I think my opinion about the old and recent version is clear, it's not 2-bit logic, better q-bit (they may mutually co-exist with different but in the whole complete probability functions).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I said “talked about ad nauseam” not “suffering” at least I’m not suffering I don’t think. If you feel you are I apologize. I tend to write a lot, too much sometimes. I was saying we can get passed the repetition and focus on the the infobox matter itself. I think I see your stance. You are fine with the current infobox version but also open to the 2017 version (with mistakes like dates corrected of course). Hope I got it now. ;) OyMosby (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I think the infobox should be divided into two: a) the three Axis powers, and b) those that actually joined the Pact (Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and the NDH). Yugoslavia's membership was only two days, and that doesn't justify being in the infobox and can be adequately covered in the body. Leave the rest out of the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll add this what the Britannica article includes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Yugoslavia not being worth listing but works as a little clickable note as is right now. Would it not be relevant have a subcategory denoting Slovakia and NDH being puppet states for the reader compared to other signers of the pact? Also what do you think of restoring this original long standing version [Here]? Only adjustments would be date and separate categories for Puppet states and Pupet governments. Again to be as accurate as possible for the readers OyMosby (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether the NDH or Slovakia were puppet states is debatable, we shouldn't be parsing this sort of thing in an infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, Yugoslavia is not listed mainly, it is only mentioned in the notes, which is appropriate. I think the current infobox is fine.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC))

@Peacemaker67: I’m confused here. Didn’t you always state that NDH was a puppet state? As is the consensus of RS, articles about them And pretty much any book about them referring to them as a puppet state even the Nurnberg trials and so on? You had argued this on this talk page in the past that they were installed by the Axis powers and would survive otherwise. Also what do you think about going back to the long standing version as I linked [Here] ? KIENGIR at told me in an other discussion that they would consider it if the dates were fixed.OyMosby (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67, I would accept that but for the exclusion of Finland (and to a lesser extent Thailand). Srnec (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec:I don’t see why Finland would be removed as Co-Belligerent being that other sources label them when talking about Axis Powers. Also could you make it an option on the RfC to choose the 2017 version (granted with tweaks to dates and such) like [Here]? It gives editors more to choose from. OyMosby (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker implied the removal of Finland. If that isn't what he meant, he'll have to clarify. Srnec (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: I see I misread. I thought you were advocating. However, what about my proposal of including the 2017 version (granted with tweaks to dates and such) like [Here] in the RfC choices?. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Finland should be excluded because sources do not consistently classify it as one of the Axis powers.

• "Finland was not officially an Axis nation, but it was an Axis-aligned co-belligerent with a shared enemy."[1]
• The book Finland in World War II states that Finland did not join the Axis [2] (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: your source proves my point as it is listed as a Co-Belligerent currently in the infobox.....I said we should keep them as that. I didn’t say they signed the pact. Please reread what I wrote.OyMosby (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would support Peacemaker's version, which is very close to my suggestion. (t · c) buidhe 03:34, 20 September 2020 (

• General comment Axis powers is the title and subject of this article. Co-belligerents could be mentioned briefly as a concept in the lead (the only really significant one was Finland, anyway) and a short section in the body, but they are peripheral to the Axis powers and those entities that signed on to the Pact (the subject of the article), and I don't believe they should be included in the infobox. Britannica mentions Finland, but only by saying that it did not formally join the Pact, but co-operated with the Axis because of its opposition to the Soviet Union. I can see Finland being mentioned in the lead as an example of a co-belligerent, but that's it. The reasons for other entities co-operating is complex and isn't a matter for the infobox. Regarding the NDH, I subscribe to Tomasevich's view that it was an Italo-German (then German from September 1943) quasi-protectorate. This shouldn't be parsed in the infobox. They signed the Pact, they should be included under the signatories with Slovakia, which also has a complex status. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Quasi-Protectorate is essentially a puppet state no? Germany had control over the economy and such I believe. Being that NDH was dependent on the power and backing of Italy and Germany who installed them. In fact Tomasevich describes NDH as a puppet state numerous times in his books so not sure what you mean? Or what is “debatable”?...While ago on this talk page you said “ It was engineered by Veesenmayer, was only able to take power in Zagreb due to the German invasion and occupation”. I have no issue of including them in the box under signatures of the Tripartite but also under a sub title “Puppet States”. I’ve seen you edit NDH related material labeling them as client state to Puppet state so assumed you agree with that what I thought was a consensus fact among historians. Also why not list puppet regimes as well like this 2017 version [Here] except tweak it to have signers of the pacts in a separate section.OyMosby (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it is complex. Not a matter for the infobox. I don't understand the need to parse this stuff in the infobox. They signed, end of. The detail goes in the body. Far too much time is spent arguing over the contents of infoboxes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

But Yugoslavia signed, too. End of? If the Axis is just an alliance independent of any actual fighting, then surely Yugoslavia belongs since it unambiguously entered the alliance. If the Axis is defined by actual co-belligerence, then why exclude Finland? Srnec (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 I know It is complex however Tomasevich himself refers to NDH as a Italo-German (then German from September 1943) quasi-protectorate and also a Puppet state In the same book as he seems to view both terms to mean the same being NDH at the end of the day had to obey their master under the painted mask of “Independence”. As he states German and Italian documents referred to Croatian territory as “occupied” and soldiers sent as “occupant soldiers”. Tomasevich states “Since NDH owed its existence to the Axis powers and could not continue without their political and military support it had to put up with whatever conditions those two imposed.” Which is why he calls them quasi-protectorate/puppet state. (Which also confused me as being that Axis powers created NDH, would’t that make the NDH automatically a Tripartite member? Or was the signing more of a show to other to make NDH seem truly independent?) I feel like we are on the same page just two terms for the same meaning. As Tomasevich is who I primarily use as a reference for topics regarding NDH and follow his view of it as well like yourself.

Regardless of their title, I still think the title be it Quasi-Protectorate/Puppet State/Client State/etc should be denoted in the infobox. Sub categories be it under Signatories, under Co belligerents or Puppet Governments . I respect your view that you disagree and it shouldn’t be. So will leave that to others to comment.

@Srnec I agree about Yugoslavia however they only lasted for two days and a lot of vandelism would occur where IPs and pov edits would delete it from the box. Also if we did include Yugoslavia physically in the list it should be denoted that were only for two days. Otherwise it could give the wrong impression to readers as if they were an equal. As has been my concern for a while for multiple members on the list.OyMosby (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Slim down. The whole idea of having an infobox is to present a quick at-a-glance overview. The problem is that the world is often not simple enough to present in that way. The current presentation, with three categories of states and no less than 6 notes, of which 4 are further links to other articles in order to explain the situation, is simply not suitable. The proposed simplification is better, but it is still problematic. It begs questions like "Why include X, but not Y?" I suggest to present only the Tripartite Pact powers in the infobox, together with a "For other states, see table below" note linking to a table somewhere in the body text. A table format will make it possible to present all states with proper comments to each. One could even skip also the three main powers from the infobox and just have a link to the table. --T*U (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  It begs questions like "Why include X, but not Y?" Because they signed a peace treaty (or unconditionally surrendered). Srnec (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

But then why use signers of the Tripartite pact as the condition or rule of thumb or the standard? Why not all collaborators or collaborating regimes, states, governments so on? I see Tu-nor’s point as far as x’s and y’s.OyMosby (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I would keep only the three Tripartite Pact powers and five states that actually joined the Pact. The status of co-belligerent is without defined criteria and, definitely, for most countries the inclusion in the infobox is WP:UNDUE. Client states were recognized states by other Axis powers, but we should use full notable names the Slovak Republic and the Independent State of Croatia. Military administrations in Nazi-occupied territories should certainly not be listed. --WEBDuB (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Finland was an Axis power. More involved than Bulgaria. The peace treaty with Finland [3] refers to "any other of the Axis Powers". The Tripartite Pact should not be treated as the definition of the Axis. It didn't even exist until September 1940. And it was never invoked. That is, no casus foederis ever arose under it. I wanted to separate more clearly this article from that on the Pact, but it seems that I am in a minority. For Finland as an Axis power, see DiNardo, "The dysfunctional coalition: The Axis powers and the eastern front in World War II", and Germany and the Second World War, vol. 8. There are, of course, others. While I'd prefer to treat Finland just like the other minor powers, I'd prefer a co-belligerent label to removal. Srnec (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I agree as Yugoslavia signed could be highlighted and not just in the notes. I agree to have Finland, and similarly as mentioned before regarding Slovakia and Croatia. This converge to the point recently the current infobox may be the most near, summarizing the arguments.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC))

I agree as they did sign (but lasted only two days) as well however it lead to a lot of pov editors IPs constantly deleting Yugoslavia off the infobox. Also if we did include Yugoslavia physically in the list it should be denoted that were only for two days. Otherwise it could give the wrong impression to readers as if they were an equal. As has been my concern for a while for multiple members on the list.OyMosby (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Time is a factor, could be in a note, as it was I think, that's enough.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC))

We need to understand the difference between the article on the Axis Powers and the Tripartite Pact. Yugoslavia was a signatory for only two days and has already been listed in the infobox in the Tripartite Pact article, but it did not fight in the war against the Allies. I'm not sure about the inclusion of Finland and others. This was not a defined coordination during the war. Definitely, listing the Soviet Union in the infobox is UNDUE, despite the invasion of Poland. That needs to be explained, but Soviet Union should be putted in controversial cases, not among the Axis co-belligerents at the top of the page.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Notes are enough in all notable cases.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC))

No case, no matter how important, is enough for a country to be listed as a member of a military alliance in a such important war. I’m not sure about Finland, but Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union are definitely not known in academic literature and the mainstream media as the Axis powers. Listing them at the top of the page, even with a footnote, is WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE. --WEBDuB (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB to be fair, some of the signatures of the Tripartite pact weren’t “Powers” but protectorates or puppets installed by the Axis powers (Germany, Italy) and then the third Japan who is unrelated to it. This was my issue with using signers of the pact as a standard for the infobox to begin with as it is al a complex matter. Hunagry (who would later be occupied) wasn't the Same status as Romania who wasn’t occupied. The whole choice of using Tripartite again seems problematic when it comes to Yugoslavia who did sign but hypocritically is left out because of a condition set forth as a arbitrary rule. I agree with Yugoslavia being listed as misleading but so are some others on that list. It isn’t that precise or npov. For the record I think Yugoslavia should NOT be portrayed as a Axis power. A number of the entities listed aren’t described as “powers” but allied to the Axis powers. OyMosby (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

WebDuB, your first statement is a bit contradicting the latter. If no matter how important, then the mainstream is irrelevant. Finland is notably bundled with Axis, YUG shortly as Soviets which became Allies. We should be precise and consistent, otherwise again everybody will just claim cherrypicked POV issues. OyMosby I think everybody know you wish to qualify some states as puppets or protectorates, you don't have to tell it repeatedly.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I am talking about in respect to Yugoslavia. And why Yugoslavia would be relevant. I was talking to WEBDuB (Who I never discussed this with) not you. I don’t know why this is such a hypersensitive matter for you. No one else is making a fuss to each of my comments. Nor do you speak for everyone. We never discussed before if Tripartite signers are to be the general rule or standard for the box. We spoke of subcategory names. If you claim I keep being repetative and that annoys you than leave me out of your passive-agressive responses. Ignore me. Do us both a favor. OyMosby (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please ignore then speculations about sensitivity and passive-aggressive nonsense. Here anyone may interact with you, I just wanted to make clear that you are understood.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC))

By you yes but you can’t assume everyone read everything up top. And it’s the first I discussed with WEBDuB. Anyone can interact with me, but only one took umbrage. Regardless I agree with you about Finland though it should stay under “co-Belligerents” as is already. To make it clear to the reader what they were jn relative to others.OyMosby (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Entirely agree that emphasising the Tripartite Pact is basically WP:OR. There is no reason to distinguish between signatories of the pact and "co-belligerents" because the majority of sources do not so distinguish between them. Whether a country was "co-belligerent" was a factor for the Allied powers related to Italy post-1943 to emphasise that co-belligerent Italy was only fighting alongside them and not an ally, but the Axis were not simply a mirror-image of the Allies and not structured in the same way. This can be seen in the sources:
  • The OED definition of the Axis is "the alliance of Germany and Italy formed before and during the Second World War, later extended to include Japan and other countries". That is, the OED definition is clearly not tied to the Tripartite Pact but instead is about countries that were alligned with Germany, Italy, and Japan before and during WW2.
  • Cambridge dictionary gives a definition of "the Axis" as "the countries, including Germany, Italy, and Japan, that fought against the Allies in the Second World War". The defining characteristic here is fighting against the Allies.
  • Merriam-Webster of "The Axis" gives "of or relating to the three powers Germany, Italy, and Japan engaged against the Allied nations in World War II". This defines the Axis as being the three most powerful three countries fighting against the Allies and things related to them.
  • This scholarly article on peace with "Italy and the Minor Axis Powers" freely refers to Finland (not a Tripartite Pact signatory) as an Axis power alongside other countries that did sign the treaty.
  • "The A to Z of U.S. Diplomacy from World War I through World War II" by Martin Folly and Niall Palmer, p.21, defines the Axis Powers as "the name commonly given to the cooperation of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy .... it was supplemented by the Anti-Comintern Pact between Germany and Japan". Again the Tripartite Pact is not describes as being essential, just part of the development of relations between the three.
  • This book on occupations carried out by the European Axis written in 1944 includes a list of European Axis countries carrying out occupations, which, in a footnote, explicitly refers to Finland but says it is not included as "The role of Finland as an occupant [is] insignificant", which is to say that the author considered Finland to be an Axis country despite not having signed the Tripartite Pact, they just don't list them because they aren't occupying a lot of territory.
  • This Foreign Affairs article from 1941 on the blocking of funds to the Axis by the US lists Finland amongst "German-controlled" countries and as part of the Axis. The Tripartite pact is not seen as a requirement to be part of the Axis.
  • "Germany and the Axis Powers from Coalition to Collapse" by R.L. DiNardo appears to list Finland as a member of the Axis, at least judging by this book review (which concurs with their inclusion). Again, signing of the Tripartite pact is not seen as essential.
  • Michael Jonas's essay in "Finland in World War II: History, Memory, Interpretations" describes the relationship between Helsinki and Berlin as "the most effective in the Axis coalition". Clearly the author considers Finland to have been part of the Axis regardless of whether they signed the Tripartite Pact.
  • World War II: The Eastern Front 1941-1945 by Geoffrey Jukes on p.52 describes Finland as "The only democracy to join the Axis". Signing the Tripartite again not seen as conclusive of Axis membership or not.

I could go on but I feel the point is proved already - distinguishing between Axis countries based on whether they were in the Tripartite pact or not is not supported by the majority of references. It is probably fairer to say it is a minority view. If, say, I had only concentrated on Finnish sources they would doubtless have made a lot out of whether the Tripartite Pact was signed or not. Serb sources, in contrast, are unlikely to do so. And if I had looked only at Russian sources then they would likely not have discussed the Russian invasion of Poland at all.

We should be very careful on here before - even as a group - coming up with our own definition of what something was. That is simply WP:OR. The sources are not using the definition of the Axis that is used on this page. Any country that you want to list, you need to find a source saying that it was an Axis country. To deal with edge cases like Yugoslavia, assuming there are sources saying Yugoslavia was an Axis country, we just need to say when it joined/left. FOARP (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being logical! I don’t understand how Tripartite signers became the gold standard to begin with. It is as I have said many times OR giving more weight to some collaborators than others puppets and non-puppets. Infobox needs to be fixed. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby Agreed. One additional point - this article obviously goes beyond the Tripartite Pact signatories, because there already is an article about the Tripartite Pact and its signatories. There is no need for us to duplicate that content here. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The Axis powers topic on Britannica says "The connections among the Axis powers were strengthened by a full military and political alliance between Germany and Italy (the Pact of Steel, May 22, 1939) and by the Tripartite Pact, signed by all three powers on September 27, 1940, one year after Germany’s invasion of Poland and the beginning of World War II. During the war a number of other countries joined the Axis, induced by coercion or promises of territory or protection by the Axis powers (my emphasis). 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."[4] This wording clearly implies that the "Axis powers" were Germany, Italy and Japan, and the the others joined the Axis coalition, but were not "Axis powers" per se. I suggest we adopt the same approach here, by making this article about the coalition of the three Axis powers, but with details in the body (and perhaps in the infobox) of the states that joined the Axis, as well as Finland that didn't join but cooperated with the Axis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 - I disagree that Britannica (a general source) should be the only source we should refer to on this. See the multiple sources above referring to e.g., Finland as a member of the Axis, including under the heading "minor Axis powers". That Finland was not an Axis country appears to be a minority view expressed primarily by Finnish sources (this source and this source clearly state that this is actually just a narrow POV within Finland, part of a national myth that arose after the war, and the reality is that Finland made war "at the side of Hitler" in the 1941-44 period) - instead it is normally described as an Axis country albeit with certain caveats. It is notable that sources published during the continuation war (i.e., the 1941 and 1944 sources linked above) universally described Finland as a member of the Axis. Even the Britannica source does not clearly limit "Axis Powers" to only Germany, Japan, and Italy, as the opening sentence of the article clearly defines the Axis Powers as "Axis powers, coalition headed by Germany, Italy, and Japan that opposed the Allied powers in World War II" (my emphasis) - that is the "Axis powers" was a coalition led by Germany/Italy/Japan and not limited to those three countries. I think where you do have a point is that we could avoid some confusion by changing the title to simply "The Axis" and removing the term "powers".

PS - Interestingly, whilst some sources state that Finland was "officially" a "co-belligerant" of Germany, and where they state this tend to provide this in quotation marks, the term preferred during the Continuation war according to this source was "brothers-in-arms". FOARP (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced countries

There is no source at present provided for the following countries being in any way part of the Axis:

• Danzig (a single source linking to what appears to be a self-made website that provides no information of it having been in the Axis, logically Danzig could not have been a member of the Axis as it was annexed into Germany)
• Italian Social Republic (this should be easy to fix using information from the page on the Salo Republic)
• Monaco (no reference provided, not clear at all from the references I've read whether Monaco should be considered part of the Axis or an occupied country)
• Greece (Hellenic State) (this should be easy to fix using information from the linked page)
• Cambodia (this should be easy to fix using information from the linked page)
• India (Provisional Government of Free India) (this should be easy to fix using information from the linked page)
• Inner Mongolia (Mengjiang) (this should be easy to fix using information from the linked page)
• Laos (this should be easy to fix using information from the linked page)
• Vietnam (Empire of Vietnam) (this should be easy to fix using information from the linked page)

Based on the above I think Danzig need only be mentioned briefly in the section on Germany. Probably Monaco should be moved to the Italy section and mentioned as a country they occupied. The others are probably fixable though I think in each case there should be sentence at the state telling the reader why they are considered part of the Axis. FOARP (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The Tripartite Pact =/= The Axis

This has been touched on above but I think it needs discussing in more detail here as it is an issue not just for the infobox but for the entire article.

Put simply: we already have an article on the Tripartite pact. If we are treating the Tripartite Pact as synonymous with the Axis then we can simply merge this article into that one. However, the Axis and the Tripartite Pact are not synonymous. Many, many sources show that the Axis is not defined as "countries that signed the Tripartite pact", but is defined more broadly than this, to include all the allies of Germany, Italy, and Japan during WW2. Unfortunately the article as presently written does not reflect this but instead reflects the non-neutral POV that there was a "formal" "de jure" Axis alliance that some countries were in and some weren't, but this isn't what the sources tell us (see above for multiple examples).

I therefore propose to remove all reference to "de jure" membership of the Axis from the article. If a country signed the Tripartite Pact and this is sourced in reliable sources then this should be mentioned. If they signed the Anti-Comintern Pact and this is sourced in reliable sources then this should be mentioned. If they signed what was effectively a military alliance with Germany/Italy/Japan and this is sourced in reliable sources then this should be mentioned. If a country signed a peace treaty saying that they had been a German/Italian/Japanese ally and this is sourced in reliable sources then this should be mentioned. We should not state, in the voice of wiki, that the positions of various wartime governments that they were or were not allies of Germany/Italy/Japan is objective fact if this is in reality a dubious statement that e.g., Allied governments disagreed with - instead it should be discussed in context.

I also propose that the article be re-structured: Tripartite Pact signatories should be collected under one section, Anti-Comintern Pact signatories under another, bi-lateral agreement (e.g., Japanese-Thai etc.) signatories under another, puppet-states under another. This is a more objective arrangement, relying only on what is said in the sources, and not ultimately on a position that is WP:OR (e.g., Thailand was a "co-belligerent" of Japan because ????, Iraq was a "co-belligerent" of the Axis because ????).

An additional issue is that countries are listed for which no source is given. For example, no source is given for Danzig supposedly being a member of the Axis, instead the reader is directed to another article to consider whether the fact that various groups within Danzig fought alongside German troops really is the same as Danzig having been a member of the Axis. All countries for which no reliable source can be found stating that they were an ally of Germany, Italy, or Japan or implying membership of Axis in some other way should be removed. FOARP (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you do with puppet states that were signatories of the tripartite pact? Also again if Tripartite signers are already their own article then why is it still a gold standard for this article presently still post all the edits in recent days? OyMosby (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is easier and more objective to list them as "signer of the Tripartite pact" (one of three important agreements between the Axis countries) but be clear that signing it does not mean that it was not a puppet state and to describe to what extent they were puppet states in the relevant section. That the governments of these countries signed the pact is simple historical fact. Whether, when, and to what extent, they were puppet states, on the other hand, is always up for discussion. For example, Hungary has often been described as a "puppet" after the Nazi-backed coup during 1944 (see, e.g., here: 1 2 3 4), but not so before then. We can expand on the fact that they were basically puppet-states in relevant section.

At least, this is how I've conceived of handling this issue. I must say it is not easy to come up with objective criteria for inclusion and structuring based on the references. The references differ in their definition of the Axis. For some it is "coalition that fought against the Allies", for others it is "Germany, Japan, and Italy", for others it is "Germany, Italy, Japan, and some other countries" - obviously it is hard to come up with an article structure based on these definitions, as some countries (e.g., Iran) fought the Allies but it is hard to find sources saying that they were allied with the Axis in any way, and "Germany, Italy, Japan and some other countries" begs the question "what other countries?". A minority of sources focus on the Tripartite Pact, but firstly this is a minority view, and secondly if this is the determiner of was "in" and "out" then we can simply merge this into the Tripartite Pact article.

The structure I've been following is based on the Tim Cooke (and many other references) describing the Tripartite Pact, Anti-Comintern Pact, and Steel Pact as the important agreements between the Axis, and the Raphael Spelman reference's description of puppet states/governments as an extension of the occupier - this gives at least some useful criteria for inclusion (i.e., signatories of the pacts, and also puppet states) and does the least damage to the article as it is. However I'm sure there are other way of structuring this and we should have a full discussion of them FOARP (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m a bit confused, you say that A minority of sources focus on the Tripartite Pact as Axis and then that many sources intact do? Which is it? I’m having a bit of a hard time following you. If all associated or that collaborated with or under the three main powers, should they all be in then infobox as well? This was a whole discussion weeks ago above. I agree with though that different versions or splits of the articles could be proposed and discussed. OyMosby (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for being unclear. A minority of sources simply say that the Tripartite Pact and the Axis are the same thing. More sources describe the Axis as being a loose coalition formed of multiple different agreements, with the Tripartite Pact just being one of them. Signing the Tripartite pact was important, but the Axis existed before the pact was signed, and countries generally considered to be part of the Axis didn't sign it. FOARP (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Too Long

I agree with Hohum that the article is obviously too long. For reference it's about twice as long as the article on the Allies (which includes more countries). I also agree with KIENGIR that we shouldn't cut important aspects of the article in order to get down to an arbitrary figure.

Too much of this article is simply a general history of WW2 and doesn't focus sufficiently on the actual topic, which is the Axis powers. For example we don't clearly describe what "The Axis" actually was in any real detail - the idea simply seems to be that if we just write enough of the history of WW2 then people will understand what they were, but I think this is a poor way of doing things. Additionally, we all know that for some of the countries included on this page the membership of the Axis is disputed (e.g., Thailand - was it a member of the Axis? occupied by the Axis? a puppet state?) and we really do need to go into depth on who it is that says they were members of the Axis and on what grounds they base this, and who it is that says they weren't allies of the Axis and why they say this - and we have to provide REFERENCES. The groupings on the page need to be based on objective criteria - I don't think simply describing all the countries that didn't sign the Tripartite Pact as "co-belligerents" does this since in some cases using the term "co-belligerent" means adopting the position of those who say that they WEREN'T an ally of the Axis.

My suggestion is to start cutting down on the general history of the war (e.g., a lot of the wall-of-text content under Germany, Italy, Japan that is unrelated to the relationship between them) and cut the unreferenced material as well (e.g., all the countries above for which no references are provided or can be found). "Colonies" might also be somewhere to look - for example the various German Reichskommissariats can probably be summarised in a single sentence.

7645ERB, Britmax, Hohum, KIENGIR, (Edit: Peacemaker67) - I think you folks know this page fairly well, what do you think? FOARP (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

FOARP,

I think your corroboration edits were useful, and you already went forward by shortening. It's ok. However, what I have opposed to be removed, it's clear (you've just put them in order...).(KIENGIR (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC))

There is a lot of "topic adjacent" information, instead of directly relevant information. I think FOARP covers the issues well. (Hohum ^@) 10:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Glad you guys like the proposal, though I'd be happy to get some push-back as well if anyone can think of a better way of organising things. I think particularly we've got to look at the times when people have come on here and said "why isn't X mentioned?" when actually X is mentioned somewhere in one of the wall-of-text parts of the article, as an indicator that at present this article is hard to read and people just can't find useful information in it. This is way more important than the infobox.

Personally I think that an article of this level of importance should definitely be GA-standard and it's a great pity that it isn't right now. Getting it to GA will take a lot of work, obviously, but I think it is something that has to be done. FOARP (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@FOARP: You made a point earlier that if we are to talk about all the axis collaborators, puppets, co-belligerents, etc, then the title of the article shouldn’t be “Axis Powers” as not all members were powers. It equalizes the abilities, culpabilities and level of power of them all which is not npov. Perhaps the article should be “Axis coalition”? The infobox should include all collaborators as well as it used to. Being that is the discussion of the article.

You had stated “ I could go on but I feel the point is proved already - distinguishing between Axis countries based on whether they were in the Tripartite pact or not is not supported by the majority of references. It is probably fairer to say it is a minority view.”

Also you had mentioned to me “ OyMosby Agreed. One additional point - this article obviously goes beyond the Tripartite Pact signatories, because there already is an article about the Tripartite Pact and its signatories. There is no need for us to duplicate that content here” but isn’t that what is still happening with this article?OyMosby (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby - I think the excessive amount of stuff about the Tripartite Pact is a good point to raise, since there is a lot of detail of the history of the Tripartite Pact per se that could probably be trimmed as it is already discussed on that page. Thus far we've concentrated on cutting down on "general history of WW2" content (e.g., listing the exact weapons systems that Romania manufactured, listing that Adolf Hitler denied a bunch of stuff that he actually wanted) but this is another area that could do with a trim. We're now getting closer to where we need to be in terms of readable prose - I think the next step is to add in a lot more referencing (and cut what isn't referenced), particularly for the more minor countries that have poor/non-existent referencing and don't really explain in some cases why they are on this page.

In terms of an RM discussion to "Axis coalition" or (my preference, though I think it might get rejected based on the MoS) "The Axis" this is a discussion we need to have at some point. You're right that "Axis powers" adopts the POV that every country listed here is an "Axis Power", but a lot of sources limit that to just Germany, Japan, and Italy (this is probably actually the majority view in reliable sources).

Romania is an instructive case - some (probably a minority) of sources here discuss it as an "Axis power" or "Minor Axis power". Others (probably a majority) discuss it simply as part of "The Axis" during the invasion of the USSR.

Alternatively we could split this page into simply content on the relations between the big three Axis Powers and a new article on "The Axis" or "Axis coalition" (or whatever the name chosen would be). FOARP (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

PS - regarding a rename discussion, some interesting stats on GBooks hits: "Axis Powers" - 667 hits, "Axis Alliance" - 437 hits, "Axis Countries" - 562 hits, "Axis Coalition" - 356 hits, "The Axis" AND "World War" (I added "world war" to exclude references to e.g., mathematics) - 708. "Axis powers" is a commonly used term BUT often just used for Italy, Germany, and Japan, "Axis countries" is almost as common but typically includes other axis members. "The Axis" is probably the most commonly used term but would fail the WP:TITLEFORMAT since we're not supposed to use "The" at the start of the title - though I think this case is similar to the "The Crown" exception so maybe we can get away with it? Frankly I can see "Axis Alliance", "Axis Coalition", or "Axis Countries" as other viable alternatives that are all better than the present title per WP:CRITERIA. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

No support for article name change, Axis powers does not imply what is assumed, neither Allied Powers, it's a collective term.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC))

The title doesn't determine the scope. I don't support a move to a less common name, let's retain the current title, make the focus of the article the three powers and have a section about the countries that were aligned with them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see this your point of view, and there's a chance that splitting the article would be basically a WP:POVFORK as well. KIENGIR - looking at the sources some of them definitely do describe "the Axis powers" as being basically Germany, Italy, and Japan (e.g., the Merriam-Webster definition, here, here, here) so this is not simply me implying that "Axis Powers" means this. Notably Peacemaker67 also appears to adopt this definition by highlighting Germany, Italy, and Japan as the "Axis powers" and the other countries as being ones that had relationship with the Axis Powers (though apologies if I have misunderstood your position). It is also true that other sources do not (e.g., Lemkin's book on Occupations in Europe on p.3 lists the "Axis powers" occupying territory in Europe as Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, and states in a footnote that Finland is not included as they are not occupying significant territory - obviously Lemkin thought the "Axis Powers" included more than just Germany, Italy, and Japan).

To be honest, though, I am less bothered by the title specifically than I am by the actual definition of what this page is supposed to cover. It cannot be simply the Tripartite Pact and its members, that's clear - otherwise we would just merge this page into Tripartite Pact. Defining it as a looser coalition including countries that signed the TP, the ACP, the Pact of Steel, and other treaties and informal alliances is better (and there are sources that support this approach - e.g., the Tim Cooke ref and others) though it means we're stuck with a situation where a lot of the countries on the list with disputed membership of the "Axis powers" - I think this is a situation we're stuck with as, since the Axis powers were the "bad guys" lots of people want to claim they weren't aligned with them, that's just history. You will definitely get people claiming that country X was in the Axis but wasn't an "Axis power" though, because some sources do use the term in this sense. FOARP (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I only wanted to say it is irrelevant which member how much power had indeed. Irrelevant, collective term, they are in one supportive branch. Peacemaker67 also did not support the title change. Btw., I don't claim for any was not member of the Axis, on the other hand I don't like if obvious facts tried to be explained out.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC))

I suggest we work our way through each questionable country here in separate threads, identifying the academic consensus for each as being part of the Axis powers or allied with the Axis and tick each one off as we go. Frankly, the main three are obviously included, as are any country that signed the Tripartite Pact. BTW, this thread is wandering off the original purpose, and a new thread should have been started about this issue. It is far better for all concerned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Temporary extended confirmed protection

I asked for Temporary extended confirmed protection to prevent what appears orchestrated edit wars and trolling by new accounts and VPN-generated IPs. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur this would be useful ([5] and others). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Slovakia?

Slovakia was a puppet state so it could be put in a separate category. Hawkillglu (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hawkillglu, Which category? Are you talking about the infobox? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Slovakia is already accurately described as a Tripartite Pact signatory. That they were a puppet state during the war is already described in great detail in the article. No need to introduce a more subjective term into the infobox - particularly given e.g., Hungary also having had a government imposed on it. FOARP (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Poland

I added a section on the Polish-Hitler pact. Poland and Hitler were on friendly terms from 1933 through the end of 1938, and Poland participated in the bullying and hostilities against Lithuania and Czechoslovakia. This cooperation extended also to fascist Italy, in the Munich conference Benito Mussolini proposed the transfer of Czech lands to Poland, Hungary, and Germany.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I undid your provocative edit per WP:POINT.(also obvious POV). As a brand new account with very few edits who immediately jumped into controversy I suggest you don't do that in the future. Volunteer Marek 15:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Appears relevant and sourced, German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact, 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania, Munich Agreement are all on Wikipedia. I will start a RfC. Certainly as relevant as the USSR to the Axis.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact - accomplishing Détente to not go to war with your neighbour (see also Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact) doesn't necessarily mean 'friendly'. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Much less so, but it does make some sense to discuss foreign relations of Axis with other countries in this article. As long as the section is properly sourced and doesn't include any fringe theories like Soviet/Russian claims that Poland provoked Germany to start WWII I think such a section may --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any serious Soviet articles/books that blamed Poland of provoking WWII, although agree that fringe theorists are everywhere.

I am not sure standard non-aggression pacts should be included into this article (MRP had specific clauses and a secret protocol that made it not just a usual non-aggression pact).

Polish-Lithuanian conflicts do not make the former a German/Axis co-belligerent, just because Germany had never been at war with Lithuania.

Munich agreement is also marginally relevant, actually, one have separate annexation of Sudetes from subsequent events (dismemberment and annexation of Czechoslovakia).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Note this article covers a period starting in 1936, so any military action or political support would count as relevant for the occupation of Czechoslovakia. The article is about the Axis, not WW2.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is still too long and has too many parts unreferenced

Per WP:LENGTH if an article has more than 80kb of readable prose it should certainly be split (and if one longer than 60kb it should "probably" be split). Using the prose-length measuring tool I see this page currently has a prose-length of 106kb.
I'm going to make the modest proposal right now that any unreferenced content should be cut so we can get this page down to a reasonable size. This is entirely justified by WP:V. I'm sure the endless fights over who gets the mark of shame in the infobox are entertaining, but it really isn't as important as the basic fact that this article is a garbage-heap in terms of referencing. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, but I disagree one removal and the shortening of the Italy section, it has weight in the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

Yes, the article is long. But no, I do not see how it can be split without damaging the article. The Banner talk 12:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What unreferenced content?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Having had a quick edit myself in the Indo-China part of the article, some of the sections which are summaries of "Main" articles are thin on referencing.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So we just port over a couple of refs from the main articles.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Whole sections of this article have no references at all, or only one. Simply porting over references from the main articles (typically "COUNTRY during WW2" articles) is questionable methodology when the immediate question for some of the countries here that are unreferenced is "why are they on this page?" and that question is not answered on the respective page. For example, there is no explanation really as to why Laos should be included here. No reference is provided for Manchukuo. Iraq is limited to a single reference to the text of Fuhrer Order, when what is really needed is a secondary source telling us that this was a German/Axis-Iraqi alliance of some sort. FOARP (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If the material is covered in the main article, and is source it is perfectly acceptable to just port over a ref. Also if it is well sourced in the main article we only need one or two sources here for convenience.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

But that material should support that country being included on this page as a member of the Axis. If it doesn't (and, e.g., for Iraq, it doesn't seem to, since the Fuhrer Order is a primary source requiring interpretation, and the page discusses the course of operations in Iraq in factual terms without providing a source saying "Iraq was an axis ally" or words to that effect). FOARP (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Does "pro-nazi"count [[6]], [[7]]?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems like we're still making an interpretation rather than having a secondary source tell us that there was an alliance of some sort. There's no doubt that Rashid was pro-Nazi, no doubt also that the Germans and Italians supported him militarily, no doubt also that he fought against the British, but does this add up to alliance? I'd be much more comfortable if there were a reference saying so. To take another example, the Shah of Iran has been described as being pro-German, and he also fought the allies, is this sufficient for us to say that Iran was an Axis country without having a reference saying that or words to that effect?

It seems to me that this area of history has been the subject of enough writing that it should be very simple to find references explicitly saying who was and was not an Axis ally, and if these references can't be found then we should hesitate about saying so. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem hung up on the word ally. They received military aid from the Axis, they fought against the British during ww2.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What I'm hung up on is sourcing, particularly on a page which is about an alliance. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well then it should only be about those nations who were part of the Axis or allied to the Axis and not just one nation, should it not?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that is it means excluding countries which the sources are pretty explicit about being part of the Axis such as Finland, which never signed any official alliance with Germany beyond the Anti-Comintern Pact. The Axis does not appear to be a formal alliance with a clear list of signatories. Even the Tripartite Pact was never formally invoked and never really functioned beyond a few technical committees. FOARP (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So? either we go with exactly what RS say or we allow some leeway. But this page is Azis powers, not (for example) Nazi Germany (which has its own international relations page). I agree we should not get hung up on the word ally.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)