Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 288: Line 288:
*'''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.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 09:56, 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.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]] ([[User talk:RaiderAspect|talk]]) 08:04, 30 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. --[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]] ([[User talk: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:POVPUSH]]ING, 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". [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 15:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


===USSR was added by IP, with no consensus===
===USSR was added by IP, with no consensus===

Revision as of 15:24, 30 January 2021

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

Then its fine to have it there then.Isabella Emma (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have cited it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Havsjö and Beyond My Ken: Vichy France waged war against Britain (which is co-belligerence with the Axis), but I am inclined to agree with removal from the infobox. Srnec (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they were a co-belligerent, why remove it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Srnec, I think you are right, but where do we draw the line? We can agree it was less co-belligerent than USSR (until the invasion of USSR at least) but see how much opposition is there to the listing of USSR below. I think the line should be simply based on what RS say. If they say France was co-belligerent, and if there is no description of such viewpoint as fringe, then we just report what the sources say. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
Wikipedia is not a RS. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of USSR in the infobox

USSR was already present (I don't have time to check who added it), so I expanded the note [1]. This was challenged [2]. I concur USSR was never recognized as an Axis power, but per quote added [3] it acted as an important German ally in the early years. I think it is more reasonable to include it in the 'Co-belligerent' list but this was challenged as well ([4]) with a request for an explicit citation. Well, the source explicitly states it was an ally so... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC) PS. Here's a reliable (academic journal) source that uses the term co-belligerent in the relevant context: [5] "The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source says: "It is worth clarifying that the Nazi-Soviet Pact was not an alliance as such, it was a treaty of non-aggression". Short term arrangement with Germany is not the same as entire Axis.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it also says "Hitler and Stalin were allies in all but name" - in other words, Moorehouse is saying that it wasn't an "alliance" on paper but that is what it was indeed. Volunteer Marek 09:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This [6] also uses the term "Nazi-Soviet alliance" and that's from a historian pretty sympathetic to SU under Stalin. Volunteer Marek 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here (political scientist). Volunteer Marek 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here, pages 116-7, 156-158. Volunteer Marek 09:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here (historian). Volunteer Marek 09:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here (also historian). Volunteer Marek 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here (professor of Holocaust Studies). Volunteer Marek 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This source [7] refers to them as "co-belligerents", 2nd page. Here's the text: "As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17". Volunteer Marek 08:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Volunteer Marek, Thanks, particularly for the second RS for co-belligerent. I think it is a better term than an ally, technically, and I'd support just moving USSR to the co-belligerent section, that mas my initial intention anyway. The term 'ally' is IMHO both less correct and more controversial (but since it is a common term it is more widely used than the technical term co-belligerent). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are in a minotrity, and discuss Nazi-Soviet relations and not the Axis Powers. Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent. Both make the opposite point, that the Axis was opposed to the Soviet Union, communism, and the Comintern from 1936.--Astral Leap (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This info has been in article for many many years so you need WP:CONSENSUS to remove it. Second, please show that "these sources are in the minority". Above I listed prominent historians, political scientists and Holocaust scholars who say otherwise. Third, obviously at various points the Axis was opposed to SU etc., which is what these sources say. However, during 1939-1941 they were allies and co-belligerents.
I should also mention that if someone reverts with an edit summary that says "discussion is ongoing" [8] THE LEAST they can do is to actually... bother participating in the discussion before blind reverting. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In an alliance, the citizens of the two countries know about the connection. The explicit agreement to cooperate is widely known. The USSR and Germany did not have this arrangement. The historians who are comparing the division of Poland to an alliance are using hyperbole. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm not sure where you're getting this from - sounds like your own original research - but "citizens of the two countries know about the connection" is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be an "alliance". In fact it has nothing to do with it and I've never seen a source define it this way. I have seen however, and provided above, numerous sources which refer to it as an "alliance". The fact that you think "historians are (...) using hyperbole" is neither here nor there. We go with sources not with whether some editor thinks those sources are wrong. Volunteer Marek 00:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, the secret codicil to divide Poland between them complicates assessing the nature of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Without it, it's simply a non-aggression pact, similar to the one which Nazi Germany had with Poland, and we would not list Poland as an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis Powers on that basis. With the codicil, the agreement has at least one aspect that is alliance-like. However, as the quote provided by Piotrus quite clearly says, as close as it might have come to being one (which really wasn't very close at all) it was not an alliance, it was essentially an agreement to look the other way while each party took the part of Poland that had been agreed to. To me, that does not qualify the Soviet Union as either an ally or a co-belligerent.
    I'd make the comparison with Roosevelt's dealings with the UK prior to Pearl Harbor. He took the US as close as possible to being an ally or co-belligerent as a neutral power could do, and historians all, make note of that, but none go so far as to call the US an ally or co-belligerent of the UK until after Germany declared war on the US and the US responded in kind.
    History is hardly ever clean and clear-cut, and it's up to historians to make evaluations of the nature of things based on the evidence presented. I haven't looked at the cites Volunteer Marek has presented above, but I have no doubt that they say what VM says they do, however the consensus of historians do not agree that the USSR was ever an ally of Nazi Germany, nor a co-belligerent, and some carefully selected citations does not change that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's leave original research out of this please (no, the agreement was not similar to the one with Poland). Likewise, the comparisons with UK and US are original research. Did US invade Germany when it went to war with UK in 1939? No. If IT HAD we would most certainly call US an ally or a co-belligerent in 1939. This is a false analogy, again. We go with sources. And what the source quoted by Piotrus says is that while it wasn't an alliance on paper, in practice it very much was. Additionally we have numerous other sources which refer to this as an alliance or to SU as "co-belligerents". You are asserting that "consensus of historians" doesn't agree with the sources I presented but you haven't actually provided any sources of your own (ones which say "no, it wasn't an alliance"). If you wish to make this argument then you need to provide sources of your own, not just blithely dismiss the ones I provided (since they are RS). EVEN THEN - if you did provide such sources - we would obviously have to list both views. But right now, only one view has sources for support and it's the "allies/co-belligerents" one. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've mistaken a talk page discussion for a Wikipedia article. In Wikipedia articles, only material supported by citations from reliable sources are acceptable, but a talk page consensus discussion is a different animal altogether. It is perfectly legitimate to use analogies and other rhetorical devices to attempt to convince others of the validity of one's point. For myself, a good coherent argument is certainly to be preferred over a handful of cherry-picked citations which do notaccurately represent the consensus of experts on the subject, and a misinterpretation of a quote which says, point blank, that it was not an alliance, and that Germany and the Soviet Union were not allies, to mean that they were allies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, The quote clearly says they were not legally allies but acted like allies and were allies in all but a name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, no, I'm sorry but that's not how this works. The talk page is NOT a place to post your own personal original research and on that basis decide what article content should be. We follow sources. The talk page is for providing sources which support your view. You have not done that AT ALL. You've only asserted, without basis, that the sources *I* provided "do not represent consensus of experts". How do we know they don't? Because you said so? Sorry, not good enough. Provide sources to back that up. Otherwise Wikipedia policy says we follow the sources we do have. Volunteer Marek 05:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, First, I concur that the case for co-belligerence is much stronger than for the alliance. Second, we have presented two reliable academic sources that explicitly describe USSR as a co-belligerent. This is what you asked for in the edit summary here: [9]. Now that the sources saying this have been presented, are you raising the bar higher? And with what? Do you have any RS that say USSR should not be considered a co-belligerent? We have two sources for and zero against such a description. I think the reasonable compromise is to describe USSR as a co-belligerent for the period 1939-1941 (and not as an ally). Lastly, common sense can be invoked. Definition of co-belligerence is "the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy with or without a formal treaty of military alliance." Soviet Union invaded Poland and fought a number of battles against Polish military. What else would you call it if not co-belligerence? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC) PS. I would like to quote User:Peacemaker67 who in a section right above (concerning the term co-belligerence being used for Vichy) said "We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick." How is this case any different? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She article is about the Axis Powers, not about Nazi Germany. So, if the cites presented call the USSR a "co-belligerent" with the Axis Powers (which you'll remember did not fight in the invasion of Poland), then go ahead and add them to the infobox, but if they only say that the USSR was (briefly) a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany only for the invasion of Poland. Since the infobox is supposed to be a precis of facts presented in the article, add to the article that because of such-and-such, so-and-so and so-and-so classify the USSR as a co-belligerent with the Axis Powers. But, again, if only to Nazi Germany, it's not germane to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, Are you saying Nazi Germany was not an Axis Power? Or that the Axis Power did not exist in September 1939? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying that although Nazi Germany was at the core of the Axis, it's not necessarily that case that a country with X relationship with Nazi Germany had X relationship with the Axis Powers. Of course, any country which fought side-by-side with the Axis against the Allies should be examined for consideration as being an Axis Power, but even that doesn't necessarily make it the case. Finland, for instance, is almost never considered to be an Axis Power, although its status here as a co-belligerent is a reasonable conclusion. The same for Vichy France, if a bit less obviously. The thing is that these relationships are hardly ever black and white. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, I don't follow how you can be ok with including Finland here but not USSR. What is the difference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finland fought for years against an ally, the Soviet Union, with German assistance. German troops were on Finnish soil, participating in the war.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to also remind everyone that this info was in the article for YEARS. Piotrus tried to offer a clarification, BMK reverted him and then proceeded to completely remove the info altogether. In absence of consensus we go back to what the original version was until the dispute is resolved. Volunteer Marek 05:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Since the lasted revert [10] mentioned lack of references, here they are: 1) Hager, Robert P. (2017-03-01). ""The laughing third man in a fight": Stalin's use of the wedge strategy". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 50 (1): 15–27. doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002. ISSN 0967-067X. The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland 2) Blobaum, Robert (1990). "The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41". Problems of Communism. 39: 106. As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, Regarding adding sources [11] (which I think is a good practice, of course) may I suggest adding relevant quotations? I provided two relevant in my previous post just above. Also, I wonder - you added Hager (2017) but not Blobaum (1990)? Any reason for the omission? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't wanna ref bomb it but I think that can be added as well. Volunteer Marek 06:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact. The Polish government, who fled from Poland during the German invasion, tried to push the notion that the Soviet Union acted against the Allies, but the Allies and the international community would have none of it. Churchill himself welcomed the Soviet move, saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail.” [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC) — Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes but this is moot since multiple sources HAVE BEEN provided. Volunteer Marek 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Erin Vaxx - Please do not remove sourced data as you did here twice [13] Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IT is perfectly legitimate to remove material which is sourced with citations which do not directly support the claims being made, and that is the case here. To include the USSR as an "Axis Power", one needs a citation which says explicitly that "'he USSR was an Axis power". To say that the USSR was a "co-belligerent" with the Axis powers, a source which says specifically that the USSR "was a co-belligerent with the Axis powers", and so on. Citations cannot make some vaguely related claim, they must say exactly what is being claimed in the article. This is really basic Wikipedia stuff, which you and VM and Piotrus know like the backs of your hands, so please please stop castigating other editors for following basic Wikipedia policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. BMK, NO ONE IS SAYING USSR WAS AN AXIS POWER!!! Please stop it with the false strawman. The USSR is being is listed as a "co-belligerent" Just like Finland, Vichy France etc. which were also NOT Axis Powers. The sources have been provided.
This is extremely frustrating.
First long standing info is removed. When someone restores it, it's reverted again with edit summaries which claim that this is new info.
Then the info is removed again under the pretense of no sources. When it's restored with sources it's removed anyway.
When the sources are provided to directly support the text, it is then falsely claimed that... no sources have been provided.
It's hard to see how this is constructive. How exactly are we suppose to resolve a dispute with this kind of argumentation?
Let's keep the article at the state it's been in, except now with the info properly sourced and finish the discussion here first. Volunteer Marek 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken - German–Soviet Axis talks - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, It's splitting hair. Nazi Germany was an Axis Power. We have sources that say USSR was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany. It's simple logic that a co-belligerent of a country A that belongs to an grouping (alliance?) B makes said co-belligerent also co-belligerent to that other grouping. Or think about it the other way. Poland was an Ally, right? Who fought Allies in WWII?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^^^^ Original research ^^^^^. When the Soviet Union entered Poland on 17 September, the Polish military and government were in a state of collapse, not much fighting. The allies did not recognize this as an act of war against the alliance. Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s not. As already pointed out Britannica and USHMM are TERTIARY sources (whose target audience is school children so it’s unsurprising they simplify and omit some info), here we use SECONDARY sources which explicitly call Soviet Union “allies” and “co-belligerents” of Nazi Germany in 1939-1941. Volunteer Marek 13:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus and Volunteer Marek: The terms "Axis" and "Allies" refer to specific groups (or blocks) of countries that fought each other to the end of the war, and AFAIK the USSR is only ever considered part of the latter. If we're to claim otherwise we need sources that state so explicitly; the USSR's cooperation with Nazi Germany at the beginning of the war is not enough to establish that association, and would indeed constitute WP:OR. François Robere (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One more time, no one is saying that USSR was part of the Axis. Quit it with the strawman already. The text is about USSR being a "co-belligerent" or an ally of Nazi Germany. Volunteer Marek 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that in this entire discussion myself and Piotrus are the ONLY editors to have actually bothered to provide sources. Everyone else opposing this is just posting their own personal feelings and original research on the matter.

Folks, you need to provide sources. That's how Wikipedia works. If you can't provide actual sources to support your position then you're just wasting talk page space. The talk page that right at the top says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

Sources please. Volunteer Marek 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Astral Leap (Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power... Both make the opposite point...) and Erin Vaxx (Carlton's Churchill and the Soviet Union) cite sources. I'll add Weinberg's World at Arms, which explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's The Second World War, which gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; The Routledge atlas of the Second World War (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders... etc. Now can we lay this to rest? François Robere (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both Astral Leap and Erin Voxx (especially that one) are new accounts which jumped right into controversial topics. Neither of them have cited sources to support their point of view. They mentioned sources which ... don't say anything either way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I show you a source which says "X is true" and you come back to me and show me a source which ... doesn't say anything about X either way, then that does not mean that X is not true. Obviously.
Find a source which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies or co-belligerents between 1939 and 1941.
And now we have a whole freakin' brigade of sockpuppets on this article.
Volunteer Marek 18:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually checked Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica), and they both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source, albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same. My contributed sources (Weinberg, Snyder and Gilbert) are also explicit on this.
I would gladly find you a source which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies, but you already had me in absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. François Robere (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no one's disputing that USSR and US/UK were Allies after 1941. Question is about 1939-1941 as anyone who even glances at this discussion should be able to figure out. Stop it with the strawman. Volunteer Marek 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And please, by all means, find me that source. I've been asking for it repeatedly so it's about someone actually tried. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
VM, your question (if I understand it correctly) is incorrectly formulated. Noone has to provide a source saying USSR was not Nazi Germany's ally. Moreover, even if such a source would be provided, that cannot be an ultimate proof that it was not, because such a source may represent a minority viewpoint. A correct approach would be to determine how 1939-41 Soviet-Nazi relations are described in majority sources. To do that, let's try the approach proposed by me. This approach is as follows: using different sets of neutrally selected keywords, find sources on that subject, and then check which sources are cited by those sources. Based on the information found in those sources, new search phrases are formulated, and the procedure repeated. If this iterative process repeatedly yields the same set of sources, we can conclude that the procedure has converged, so we identified a set of sources that represent a majority viewpoint (or a set of significant minority viewpoints).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, because your reasoning implies that “if not every source says X then X is not true”. You will have some sources which simplify. You will have other sources which focus on some other aspect of the topic. You can’t expect all or even most sources to say X. At the end of the day you can only look at whether sources say “X” or “not X”. And right now all we have is sources which say X where X=USSR and Nazi Germany were allies in 1939-1941. Volunteer Marek 07:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur we don't need sources to prove the negative. But we have sources that say the Soviet Union was a Nazi ally (or co-belligerent) and no sources to dispute them. To be clear, nobody is disputing USSR status as an Ally and part of the Big Three. But there is no contradiction in being in both camps, changing sides. Well, just to be clear, nobody is also arguing USSR was part of the Axis. Co-belligerence (or being an ally) of a group is not the same as being a part of the group, and we have a section here called co-belligerence. Why shouldn't USSR be in it? They co-invaded Poland (an Ally) together with Nazi Germany and this led to many scholars calling them an ally or co-belligerent of Nazi Germay. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, we are not proving a logical syllogism here. We are simply trying to figure out what sources say. The question “were Nazi Germany and USSR allies in 1939-1941” is pretty straight forward and of obvious academic interest to historians. If it’s controversial then you would naturally expect some sources to say “yes they were” and some to say “no they weren’t” and some to not address the question at all (cuz they focus on something else). But here we actually only have sources which say “yes they were” and some which don’t address the question. To draw the conclusion from that that they weren’t, when No sources which say “no they weren’t” have been provided is kind of absurd. Volunteer Marek 07:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there are three groups of sources: (i) the sources that describe Nazi-Soviet relationship as a de facto military alliance; (ii) the sources that apply the word "alliance"/"ally" in its colloquial meaning (i.e. they say Nazi-Soviet relationships were relatively frendly, but they do not say it was a real military alliance), and (iii) the sources saying otherwise. The fact that the group (iii) do not dispute with group (i) sources may mean that the (iii) group sources represent a fringe viewpoint, or that they represent majority/mainstream views. Based on the information available to me, I conclude the second explanation is the most plausible. However, I propose to clarify that question by doing a joint literature search.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Siebert, I am not sure how this can be done quantitatively. Why don't you reply to my earlier queries about how can we justify the Soviet invasion of Poland as not fitting into the plain English definition of co-belligerence? We have RS for this being described and such and it fits the definition to a letter. What do we need a literature review for? To prove this is not a fringe view? That again seems like a request to prove the negative. Which reliable sources say it is a fringe view? If not, it's sufficient we have sources for co-belligerence. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the section that I created below is partially inspired by this your post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am opposed to removing the USSR from the infobox so long as we insist on subdividing it and including a "co-belligerents" section. I would have no problem removing the USSR, Iraq and Vichy France and simply collapsing the remaining states into a single undivided list. But everybody seems to prefer their lists divided. And Finnish propaganda. Srnec (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought Vichy France was a neutral state, and all her military incidents with the Allies were a result of non-provoked attacks by the Allied forces. I am not familiar with Iraq history, so I have no opinion about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Weinberg's World at Arms... explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's The Second World War... gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; The Routledge atlas of the Second World War (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders.; Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica)... both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source (Churchill, as quoted in Carlton's Churchill and the Soviet Union -FR), albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same. You can see more from Gilbert and Davies in the thread below. François Robere (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an actual quote from Weinberg (page numbers etc)? Because what I see him saying is the following:
"The French government was understandably shaken and disappointed about the Soviet Union aligning herself with Germany
Also calls Soviet Union an ally of Nazi Germany on page 54.
Also calls the fall of Poland in 1939 a "joint victory" of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union (page 57)
Also spends several pages discussing the economic, intelligence and military support the Soviet Union provided to Nazi Germany in 1939 and 1940
Also states that the reason Soviet Union did not end up joining the Tripartite Pact is because Germany (not USSR) aborted the negotiations.
Also states that Soviet Union would have "preferred" to join the Tripartite Pact if Germany had agreed to it (pg 249)
Also states that the Soviet Union trying its best to join the Tripartite Pact in 1940 was a "serious offer" (pg 201)
Also states that the Soviet Union made "massive economic offers" to Nazi Germany to persuade it to let them join the Axis (ditto)
Also states that the Soviet Union agreed to commit to fight alongside Nazi Germany in any potential war with Nazi Germany.
So can you provide a quote which says that the USSR was NOT allied with Nazis Germany in 1939-1940, because everything I see in this source actually says the opposite! Volunteer Marek 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So actually it seems Weinberg calls it an alliance too!
Yes I know, now I want to see some RS saying they were part of the Axis powers, not allied with Germany, party to the axis.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again. The argument is NOT over whether USSR was part of the Axis. It's whether the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Absolutely no one here is claiming that USSR was part of the axis. Francois Robere keeps trying to use this line as a strawman despite the fact that he's been asked to drop it since that's not what the discussion is about. Volunteer Marek
And neither France nor the UK declared war on Russia, thus is was not part of the same conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was no "Russia" but I'm not sure if this is relevant anyway. All that matters is whether sources call Soviet Union "allies" of Nazi Germany or not. Volunteer Marek 15:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it's whether or not they are called Allies or co-belligerents of the axis, NAzi Germany is not the Axis, it was part of it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Weiberg, World at Arms, p. 26: "The Soviet Union alone outside the Axis accepted the disappearance of Czechoslovakia and anticipated the disappearance of other countries." I don't quite have the leisure at the moment to go through the pages you cited above. François Robere (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Soviet Union was not in the Axis. No one is saying they were. I *just* asked you to stop misrepresenting the debate in such terms, yet here you are doing it again. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

PLEASE NOTE - Discussion is NOT about whether USSR should be listed as an Axis Power

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

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

The infobox has three parts (image on right):

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

Please address the issues actually raised and not SOME OTHER dispute which doesn't actually exist. Thank you. Volunteer Marek 15:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, some editors are possibly confused. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, But what they consider, while of lesser importance, is often notable and relevant. Hence why we have articles about treaties that have not been signed/ratified yet, etc. (And in some cases, never will be - ACTA, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, Makes sense. I'd support addition this (with a reliable source, of course). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talks that ended with naught, no deal.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean “no deal”? Fact that Stalin accepted joining the pact is surely significant. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
He did agree though. Volunteer Marek 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed to what?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To join the Tripartite Pact. Volunteer Marek 16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Beyond My Ken you are right Hitler always intended to "go with Barbaross, and never seriously considered the USSR as a member of the Tripartitie Act.

Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, led to one of the most brutal campaigns of World War II: of the estimated 70 million people who died in World War II, over 30 million died on the Eastern Front. Although it has previously been argued that the campaign was a pre-emptive strike, in fact, Hitler had been planning a war of intervention against the USSR ever since he came to power in 1933. Using previously unseen sources, acclaimed military historian Rolf-Dieter Muller shows that Hitler and the Wehrmacht had begun to negotiate with Poland and had even considered an alliance with Japan soon after taking power. Despite the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, at the declaration of war in September 1939, military engagement with the Red Army was still a very real and imminent possibility. In this book, Muller takes us behind the scenes of the Wehrmacht High Command, providing a fascinating insight into an unknown story of World War II.

Rolf-Dieter Muller is Professor of Military History at Humboldt University, Berlin; Scientific Director of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Institute in Potsdam; and Coordinator of the 'The German Reich and the Second World War' project. He is the author of numerous publications on World War II including The Unknown Eastern Front: The Wehrmacht and Hitler's Foreign Soldiers (I.B.Tauris). https://www.amazon.com/Enemy-East-Hitlers-Secret-Invade/dp/178076829X70.54.168.41 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. Volunteer Marek 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What's your source for Stalin agreeing to join? François Robere (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@Paul Siebert: A longer quote from Gilbert, which sits well with what you found:

As to Russia, [Hitler's Directive 18] stated, ‘all preparations for the East... will be continued’, and further directives would follow... ‘as soon as the basic operational plan of the Army has been submitted to me and approved’.

This clear indication that an invasion of Russia remained Hitler’s goal coincided with the visit to Berlin of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov... Molotov wanted to know what Russia’s part would be in the New Order of Germany, Italy and Japan, as created by the Tripartite Pact, and where matters stood in the Balkans and Roumania, with regard to Russia’s interests. Hitler had no answer, telling Molotov that they must break off their discussion...

[The next day] Molotov continued his talks with Ribbentrop, who proposed that the Soviet Union become a partner in the Tripartite Pact. Molotov was dubious of Soviet adherence to the Axis, referring to Italy’s setbacks... and telling Ribbentrop he thought that ‘the Germans were assuming that the war against England has already been won’... [Some time later] British bombers came over Berlin yet again, and they had to... continue their talks in Ribbentrop’s own air-raid shelter... Rubbing salt in the wound, Molotov said that ‘he did not regret the air raid alarm’, as it had provided the occasion for an ‘exhaustive’ discussion...

It was something else, however, that Molotov said to Ribbentrop... which convinced Hitler that he would only be put further and further in difficulties by Soviet ambitions if the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 were to remain the basis of German policy... Molotov went so far as to tell Ribbentrop that Russia could never entirely give up its interest in the western approaches to the Baltic: the waters of the Kattegat and Skagerrak, between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, once under Danish, but under German control since May.

François Robere (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Davies doesn't state that the USSR joined the Axis. François Robere (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Paul Siebert, I think this discussion is off track. Nobody is saying USSR was part of the Axis. Obviously, it wasn't, and the 1940 negotiations which didn't conclude are just historical trivia. What is relevant is whether USSR was an ally or co-belligerent to the Nazi Germany (and by the extension, Axis) due to its invasion of Poland in 1939. We have a number of sources saying that they were, and not a lot of sources (zero?) arguing otherwise (particularly for the term co-belligerent, which is what is used in the current infobox, as the term ally is I think more problematic and best ignored). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nope. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    TheTimesAreAChanging, 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| reply here 02:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [14] . The USSR fought against Japan and Romania during the period as well.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GizzyCatBella🍁 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

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))[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I concur this would be useful ([15] and others). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Paul Siebert, 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| reply here 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paul Siebert: 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)[reply]
Paul Siebert, 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." [16]], 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| reply here 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

KIENGIR, 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| reply here 02:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(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))[reply]
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))[reply]

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) [17] .--Erin Vaxx (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GizzyCatBella🍁 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]
User:Paul Siebert, note was triggered by this Vote [18] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
... 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Paul Siebert, "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| reply here 06:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

commnet - @Paul Siebert: 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)[reply]

@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" [19] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Wendylove well, sorry, I disagree, but I respect your position. Can I ask you to halt changing other articles[20] until we reach some agreement here? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Should Burma be added as a co-belligerent?

Per my note above, "why is Burma not in the infobox? It has its own section in the article under ' Bilateral agreements with the Axis Powers' and all four other countries in that section are listed as co-belligerents." Let's discuss this in the new section for transparency. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you all (not directed at anybody in particular) stop opening different sections to argue different spins of the same thing and instead get a single centralized discussion to resolve this obviously rather annoying issue. As to "why is Burma not in the infobox", what is required is a WP:RS which identifies it as a co-belligerent (or equivalents of that term), not WP:SYNTH - this is the only way to resolve the issue to a satisfactory level for everybody, as otherwise I have the feeling you'll get bogged down into details of what is and what is not a co-belligerent, which is a waste of everybody's time as it would fall well foul of WP:NOR... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree RandomCanadian. If you want to do something with that "co-belligerent" stuff, then you should open "co-belligerent of WW2" in military history section first, not to mention whole the country which you think as co-belligerent in each talk page.... What a waste of time exactly.... -- Wendylove (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Piotrus to open a new section, since already the opened sections having deteriorated with many cross-reference and soon the whole would be hard to trace. So yes, hotch-potch should be continued in the already opened sections, but for any clear-cut proposal a new section is necessary and anything should be as concise as possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&diff=prev&oldid=1003762095

Leave a Reply