Talk:Tripartite Pact

For those who deny WWII was a single global war...

Why don't you take your arguments to the discussion pages of the actual Second World War article. I highly doubt claiming that WWII was two separate wars (aka: false historical revisionism) is going help the US regain the world's trust or whatever some claim. (Repdetect117 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Because this very article is promoting historical falsehoods, by definition and interpretation. There used to be dozens and dozens of posts debating the issue back and forth here, wikipedia has deleted all save the 2 summary posts declaring the article historically innaccurate. The Tripartite Pact is the core argument for the claim everyone should consider what we call ww2 as a single unified war.

Although Wikipedia has deleted all the defending arguments(and both sides used English historical sources by the way), one reason schoolboards like ours don't allow them to be used by students as a research source is because, as the other 2 here mention, they have proven the article incorrect as printed, yet refuse to remove or even flag it as historically innaccurate.

Revinionism is when Hearst's media empire convinced Americans for a century, that the Spanish started the Spanish-American War by torpedoing the Maine. Correction is when American historians concede that was 'yellow journalism' and a propagandic lie accepted a century as historical truth.

Another example of Revisionism was our claim that the Germans were wrong about the Lucitania carrying munitions and war-materials as cargo(a major argument for the US joining what we call WWI), when we also recently found that to be a lie as well.

If anything, the world will resent and mistrust us the LONGER we refuse to correct our own historical record.

I know I actually gained more respect for the likes of Colin Powell for resigning/refusing to continue with what our media/historians declared as historical fact of Iraq being behind 9/11 and possessing WMDs.

If anything, the more and quicker we admit to our own propaganda guised as historical fact, the sooner we'll regain or earn international respect.

As for those teachers online who've mentioned that when The Yale Project was asked to produce evidence of the original copy of the English version they claim as the actual titled "Axis Pact" including Japan an active military ally of Germany and Italy, they never did so for us either. Therefore they have been added to our list of 'unreliable sources' for students too.

AthabascaCree (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Then would you suggest WW2 be redefined as a period where two conflicts overlapped, or should the term be completely done away with? --Repdetect117

Absolutely. I would hope any ethical student of history would want a neutral unbiased account of international history over their own politically-biased version. Obviously that's why Wikipedia isn't considered an impartial source as hoped sadly either. Just look up The Vietnam War and contrary to most of the world's history, Wikipedia only lists the American aspect of the ongoing conflict over even that countries' own version of it's own history. Until more of you speak up for impartiality here, that's where it will remain.

You, America, or 'we' seem to have no problem identifying other conflicts as separate and distinct.

Does your American history claim that the US was part of even 'The Napoleonic Wars'?

Of course not, it became politically embarassing. Therefore, eventually, we agreed to separate it as 'The War of 1812' instead.

Numerous 'foreign' histories often include even 'The American Revolution' as part of the ongoing 'Anglo-French Wars' of the period, (again, it seems you have no problem with the 'separate war' concept here), which of course we 'anglos' don't include as an all-emcompassing single war because of later political reasons.

The others are correct, the majority of the world's population identify numerous distinct wars refusing to use our single, inaccurate but politically-flattering all-encompassing single conflict.

To focus on just one proof example, European history identifies Finland involved in 3 distinct wars during the same period.

The Winter War we could call The 1939-40 Russo-Finnish War.

The Continuation War we could call The 1941-44 Finno-Russian War.

The Lapland War we could call The 1944-45 Finno-Nazi War.

Even the former Soviet Republics and our former Allies in Taiwan agree that there were numerous distinct wars, often described as 'foreign interference' in the ongoing Chinese Civil War 1924-49. Korea to Indonesia even Mongolia today teach of numerous wars linked to their independence separate from our terminology.

Right there that's already the majority of the world's population disagreeing with our(let alone American) version of events as a single unified war, including those that were supposedly our allies.

The rest of the English-speaking world doesn't always agree with American accounts either. While Oxford lists over a dozen wars started by the US without declaration between 1903-1939, American history does not. So no, we do not consider American history to be 'the world's history'.

Even American historians have retracted their version of events to admit that the Spanish did not actually start the Spanish-American War by torpedoing the Maine, admitting that for over a century American history was the victim of 'yellow journalism' or propaganda by the Hearst media empire. Nations change their account of history all the time, usually based upon political prejudices.

So definately, eventhough I couldn't simply call myself a 'ww2 buff' anymore lol, as a teacher and ethical student of history, who's attended and taught the subject internationally, I would have everyone's(not just ours) 'nationalized' histories' corrected for impartial accuracy, yes.AthabascaCree (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. However, is World War Two an invalid term? (Repdetect117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

On a semi-related note; while European history mentions the Continuation War and Lapland War, during the time of the war in Europe, the Russians considered the so called "Continuation War" to be part of their Great Patriotic War (and still do). Also, the Germans the combat along the Russo-Finnish border to be part of their Eastern Front due to the fact their troops were present their. The term Lapland War was originated by Finland; the Germans considered their retreat from Finland to be part of the general retreat of their forces from the arctic (northern regions of Finland and Norway). (Repdetect117 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

Article Remains Biased and Prejudiced

The article remains lacking in objectivity and neutrality of reporting.

a) The omission of "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" is an blatant sign of bias.

b) The omission of the "Pact of Steel" which Japan refused to join is another sign of bias.

c) The omission of the proven fact that the USSR was indeed invited to join the "Tripartite Pact" to make it "The Pact of Four" as Japan, Italy and the USSR wanted, took the negotiations seriously, and is, again, an obvious sign of prejudicial reporting.

d) As pointed out on the "Axis" pages as well, there has been NO authenticated original signed document in member languages proving the existance of any Pact joining Japan to Germany and Italy title "Axis".

e) The claim that the "Tripartite Pact" was the proper name of the "Axis Pact" was also disproved.

f) If the rule is supposed to be that if you cannot provide evidence of the actual document's existance, then it can not be used as a stated objective and neutral fact in the article. as those using Slavinsky who's book shows actual photographs of the signed documents in appropriate languages, that it should not be stated as evidence in fact in this article.

g) The article continues its bias by continuing to claim the "Tripartite Pact" supplemented the "Anti-Comintern Pact" when it was proven by sourced evidence that Tokyo dissolved the "Anti-Comintern Pact" with Germany's signing of the "Nazi-Soviet Pact" and never signed the "Pact of Steel" therefore cannot possibly have 'supplemented' eachother.

The article remains obviously biased and prejudiced retaining statements unproven even disproven not to mention major omission of Soviet invitation and "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" which has been proven.TheBalderdasher (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

wow where did you learn that, tavy 13:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oktawiusz (talk • contribs)

Tavy,

Like only a couple of others not deleted here, I also taught history, researched before that, now retired, lecturing still and researching just for my own interest anymore, sad huh?

Sadly whomever(i was told only the author or wikipedia editor could), deleted pages of we teacher's/researcher's posts,

someone had started what I thought was a brilliant adaptation specifically for such online forums,

where even i would rather go to the library or sneak a peek in a bookstore rather than buy every book sourced here

to prove to myself that the poster wasn't either making up the book and author,

or wasn't misquoting or 'selectively quoting' out of context,

so he or she started actually listing the chapter, page and paragraph(so I thought must be a teacher)

but outright quoting the entire paragraph word for word to prove they weren't taking it out of context

(which my secretary felt made them a librarian), either way, it was, in my opinion,

the best way for people without those books to go the the libraries or bookstores and confirm for themselves

without having to take out a mortgage to buy them all;)

so frustrating the author or wikipedia editor? deleted them all.

However, i did find an old print-out from those days, the best i can do for you is type out a dozen or so of the sources me and others listed,

hope it helps.

I now recall receiving a message here all those years ago, telling me I couldn't use non-English books/authors as sources,

so forgive me if i let one slip by

i am no linguist, but if there wasn't an english translation, our linguist departments would help translate for us,

though i would still argue it's wrong to use only books written in the victor language for the victor market

and claim your argument 'impartial' or 'factual'

(But in the end, I agree with the others I notice no longer participate in wikipedia, if wikipedia isn't going to delete unproven or proven wrong information

and stop authors from deleting those proving them wrong

then it is the joke Jon Daily and Stephen Colbert make it out to be

so sad, we had such high hopes for these, and so many schoolbooks remain so far behind the times)

"The Oxford Companion to WWII", 1995-2005, Oxford and New York

"Total War" The Causes and Courses of The Second World War, Calvocoressi, Wint and Pritchard, 2nd Ed 1995, Penguin Books(though you can tell some of the authors' missionary/anglo/american bias, alot of lies revealed)

"Myths and Legends of the Second World War" James Hayward, Sutton, 2004

"The Art of War in World History: From Antiquity to the Nuclear Age" Chaliand, 1994, California

"The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945", John Toland, 2003(Pulitzer Prize editions always cost more, try to find cheaper edition)

"Liddel Hart's History of the Second World War", Pan Books, 1979

"Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army", Merion and Susie Harries, Random House, 1991(admittedly a more culture gender focus, yet again, some lies revealed)

"But Not in Shame: the six months after pearl harbor", Toland, Random House, 1961

"The Winter War: The Soviet Attack on Finland 1939-1940", Engle & Paananen, Stackpole Books, 1992

"Infamy: Pearl Harbour and Its Aftermath", Toland, Berkley, 1982(I have the more shocking re-edited version published after the Secrecy Act Records release of 1993, co-authored by the head of the OSS at the time if I recall correctly, but not here, I remember it was sold out so long I had to buy my copy from a library;)

"How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: the fatal errors that led to the nazi defeat", Bevin Alexander, Three Rivers Press New York, 2000

"Atlas of World History", Oxford, Institute of Historical Research, University of London, 2002

"Atlas of Military Strategy", Chandler, Arms and Armour Press, London, Melbourne, 1980

"Korea's Place in the Sun", Cumings, W.W. Norton & Company, 2005

"Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII", Cornwell, Viking, 1999

"The Japanese War Machine", Mayer, Chartwell, 1989

"Japan: A reinterpretation", Patrick Smith, Harper Collins, 1997

"Raising the Red Banner: the pictorial history of stalin's fleet 1920-1945", Yakubov & Worth, 1998

"Third Reich Victorious: alternate decisions of world war ii", Tsouras, Ballantine, 2002

"Rising Sun Victorious: an alternate history of the pacific war"(note how he uses the Japanese, not our term)...it could have happened and nearly did", Tsouras, Ballantine, 2007

"Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters" Richard A. Clarke, Harper Collins, 2008

"The Forgotten War: Volume Two", Cohen, PH, 1990

"After the Reich: the brutal history of the allied occupation", MacDonogh, Basic Books, 2007

"The Allied Occupation of Japan", Eiji, Continuum, 2003

"Disaster at D-Day", Tsouras, GMP, 2004

"If the Allies Had Fallen", Showalter & Deutsch, 2010(shockingly American-biased, even Britain mal-represented, at least it shows how even hand-picked US-biased authors in the same book can make conflicting statements, it reads eerily like an assignment we got to break up into groups of 10 and write a biased history of any conflict from one nation's point of view using sources).

"Military Errors of World War Two", Macksey, Casswell Military, 1998

"Military Intelligence Blunders and Cover-Ups", Wilson, Robinson, 2004

"The Japanese-Soviet Friendship Neutrality Pact", Slavinsky/, 2005, (yes, the English translation, i suggest you try to find it in a library, extremely expensive, someone stole my 1st copy)

"Intelligence in War", Keegan, Vintage, 2002

"Day of Deceipt: the truth about FDR and pearl Harbor", Stinnet, FP, 2000

"The Battle for History", Keegan, Vintage, 2005

TheBalderdasher (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove This Article for Unsubstantiated and Disproven Statements

The above long debate has proven that the Tripartite Pact was NEVER activated.

Wikipedia is supposed to remove article statements that cannot be proven or have been dis-proven. Wikipedia is supposed to remove articles that are obviously not reporting on a topic in a neutral and objective manner.

The Tripartite Pact could only be invoked IF Article 3 was invoked, which it never was.

ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.'

None of the members were attacked while the pact existed, in each case the members were the attackers. There are volumes of evidence provided above and Wikipedia STILL refuses to invoke its own rules.

5 months have gone by since contributors have proven by sourced historians that "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" not only existed and should have been described as far more related to "The Tripartite Pact" than the mentioned "Anti-Comintern Pact"(which was proven cancelled by Japan when Germany signed the 'Nazi-Soviet Pact') and "Pact of Steel"(which was proven that Japan never signed).

The reason the article refuses to mention "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" AFTER 5 MONTHS can only be because it is further proof that "The Tripartite Pact" was NEVER activated.

That Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact kept Japan from declaring war on the USSR even after the German alliance invaded and declared war on the USSR; and kept the USSR from declaring war on Japan even after Japan attacked and declared war on the Allies(NOT USSR) after Pearl Harbor.

The USSR did violate The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact, AFTER both Italy and Germany had surrendered, therefore Article 3 still could not apply. Also that invasion occurred while the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact still in effect for another year, making it a violation of International Law, the Atlantic Charter, the Washington Charter and the UN Charter. This article has clear bias and prejudice and should be removed.

By Wikipedia's own guidelines and rules, this article should be revoked for intentionally describing unproven and disproven statements.

Wikipedia points out how much debate has taken place here but refuses to remove what has been proven to be not neutral and objective reporting on a topic, but instead reciting old propaganda lies.

I agree with the above, why is this article still up when it has clearly violated Wikipedia's own rules?DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.

We are cancelling Wikipedia. 2604:3D09:2384:5F00:8868:7E96:129D:21FA (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource Original Text

Just thought that an editor might like to know, the wikisource text article has been deleted, so the link at the bottom of the top infobox on the left should be deleted or changed to the right link.
I did not want to do this as it may have been flagged as vandalism, since the link is still blue, but if an editor could take this away or change it to avoid confusion, I would be grateful. Thanks --84.253.60.142 (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

in what we(but not everyone), call WW2 or the Second World War I found this quote near the beginning of archived page number two. What nations don't acknowledge the existence of the Second World War? Do they even exist? --Repdetect117 (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Many nations do not. The war against Japan is named 'The Greater East Asian Conflict' by Asian nations like Japan, Korea, China, Thailand and former colonies including India who changed the term after Independence. Finland, Sweden and Turkey also differentiate the wars differently than we.

Alot of Latin American nations(not to mention Spain and Portugal) name the war against Japan instead as 'The Pacific War' as opposed to 'The European War', which makes sense to them given when they declared war on whom-ever. Even Russian history distinguishes them as separate wars, they call the war in Europe as "The Great Patriotic War", not even WW2, and the war in Asia as "The Asian War"(see Slavinsky, Jukes or Oxford).

TheBalderdasher (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The term Greater East Asian Conflict was the name that the Imperial Japanese government used for the conflict in the Pacific. Following the end of the war, Japan has referred to the conflict in the Pacific as the "Pacific War". Russian historiography has never considered the "Great Patriotic War" to be separate from the greater global conflict. Second, just because countries use terms like "European War" and "Pacific War" does not mean that they are separate conflicts, in fact, American historians even use those terms. --Repdetect117

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. You are only proving the flaws of your apparently American history education. I used to think the same through most of my University years too, so don't sweat it too much.

If wikipedia hadn’t permitted the deletion of all the properly Russian and English historian sourced posts, you’d see you were wrong about everything except American historian claims linking the 2 wars into 1.

First, the term Greater East Asia Conflict was NOT used to define the Pacific War, but instead in 1937 the ‘conflict’ to support the concept of the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere made official by PM Konoe. In fact it is disappointing to see American histories claim that Japan and China declared war on eachother back in 1937, they did not. The Japanese did not because the government in Tokyo was actually trying to stop the Army. Chiang's KMT did not because then, by American law, then they couldn't receive foreign aid and lend-lease from the United States.

Oxford’s Companion To World War II(Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1995) page 500.

“When describing the war they fought between 1941 and 1945-the Allies call it the *Pacific War- the Japanese, in their English-language coverage of the war directed at the peoples of the conquered territories, generally use the phrase ‘Greater East AsiWar’ (Dai To-A Senso).”

Second, I’ve been to Japan, Korea and the China’s myself, teach students from those countries, and can attest to the fact that, even today(let alone your claim they changed their terminology post-war) they all make the distinction between the ‘Greater East Asian War/Conflict’ as being that involving China, and ‘the Pacific War’ as being that involving the war against the Allies.

Third, I’ll use American historians on Wikipedia itself here to prove wrong your statement regarding ‘The Great Patriotic War’; which may influence you more than my own English translation of the most recent Russian history books authored by Slavinsky and the Slavic Educational Institute, to prove the hearsay of the exchange students we had from Russia, Ukraine and Belorusse three years ago, their history books agree with our Oxford definition of ‘The Great Patriotic War’.

1st, even your own Wikipedia ‘American’ historians. Look up ‘The Great Patriotic War’ on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War_(term)

"The term Great Patriotic War (Russian: Великая Отечественная война, Velikaya Otechestvennaya Voyna[1]) is used in Russia and some other states of the former Soviet Union to describe their portion of the Second World War from June 22, 1941, to May 9, 1945, against Nazi Germany and its allies. The term is not generally used outside the former Soviet Union (see Eastern Front).

There is a difference between this term and World War II or Second World War, as the Russian term denotes only the war between Germany and its European allies, and the Soviet Union. The war with Japan (including invasion of Manchuria) and the war on the Western front are not referred to by this term."

2nd our the Oxford History to WWII, Page 434. “The German-Soviet war, known in the USSR as the Great Patriotic War ranks as the greatest conflict ever fought on A SINGLE FRONT.”

Page 1207 “The USSR was an active participant in the Second World War from start to finish, from September 1939 until August 1945. Official Soviet propaganda, which came to be widely accepted in the West in relation to events in eastern Europe, made great efforts to conceal this fact. Soviet histories have always preferred the label of ‘The Great Patriotic War, 1941-45...”

Your fourth error(second comment) is that just because even American historians use the terms ‘Pacific War’ and ‘European War’ doesn’t make them separate conflicts only highlights the arrogance of your position. That just because American historians use the terms to describe 2 aspects of the same war that other nations must mean the same as well.

We’ve already proven, even using your trust in American Wikipedia historians, that various nations not only use the terms differently, but use different terms altogether. If you read translations of Volkogonov or best yet the latest Slavinsky and others you can get through the Slavic Research Center, you’ll see Russian history books still use the term ‘Great Patriotic War’ for the war in Europe and any of the following I’ve found:

'The War Against Japan', 'The Japanese Campaign', 'The Campaign in the Far East' even 'The Pacific War' but nowhere do I see it referred to as 'WWII' nor 'The Second World War'. If you have a MODERN(since 2005) English-translated Russian history book that clearly identifies the Soviet attack as part of WWII, tell me the name, author and publisher and I’ll order it too.

And I consider those old authors like Adyrkhayev as patriotically-biased propagnadists as do Slavinsky and Jukes.

Right now, the only recent Russian publications like Slavinsky clearly identify the Soviet war against the Germans and her allies in Europe as separate to their LATER war with Japan, especially as it clearly violated their own Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact. I’m sure the others notice, as I do, that in all your defense of the article as written, that you do not even mention the gross absence of that pact. I suggest you read “The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact”(2005 Slavinsky) translated into English by Jukes.

As aforementioned, we seem hypocritical to define one pair of wars as a single war when we conveniently define other less boastful pairings as separate wars. The critics are correct when they say we Americans were far more tied to the French linking the Franco-English Wars and The War of American Indepdence not to mention the Napoleonic-Coalition Wars and the War of 1812, so using that reasoning does seem hypocritical.

As one, now deleted I see, Vietnamese contributor here pointed out, by that reasoning the USA was at war with Stalin because their ally the KMT were at war with the CCP. Even modern Russian historians using the most recent investigation of unsealed secret KGB and Diplomatic records admit that the Soviets, Japanese, Germans and Italians all officially viewed the European and Pacific(Chinese) wars as distinctly separate conflicts. You can see actual quotes by the various political leaders and foreign ministers.

I believe the criterion you use to claim 2 wars must be the same war is as flawed as that attempt in modern days trying to tie the Iraq and Afghan wars together. If even most of our allies swallowed that anymore, then all of NATO or at least even NORAD would’ve been in Iraq like they are in Afghanistan.

To show you how even our history changes, since 2001 Oxford itself has changed the definition of ‘the Axis’ to exclude Japan. Page 93 “ (the Axis) the alliance between Germany and Italy in the Second World War.”

As I said before, you're beliefs are not uncommon. I used to believe the same way until I was further educated by more unbiased sources. Sadly these continued nationally-biased representations of history only feed especially post-Iraq jokes on how gullible 'anglo-americans' are.TheBalderdasher (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I got my information about the how the Japanese nomenclature of the war in the Pacific from this website: http://www.je-kaleidoscope.jp/english/index.html. It is a site that contains several English translations of Japanese school textbooks. I believe you said that you've taught in Japan so I'm curious if you have ever encountered these publications before. And one more thing, I'd appreciate if you got rid of your hostile tone. Repdetect117 (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Debates in Archives

For those of you who care, the old sourced debates you complain missing are in the 'archives'.

But that only goes to prove that none of you should bother with Wikipedia anymore.

It doesn't matter how well you source your evidence for corrections of articles here, nothing changes.

Stop wasting your time guys.

Have just returned from school trip through Asia again. Hope to see y'all somewhere more reliable. Cheers all.DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about Japan from a ww2 knowledge n00b

Why did Nazi Germany ally itself with two countries (Italy and Japan) that weren't part of the "master race"? And how did they explain that to their citizens? 75.36.164.103 (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer your question re: Japan, except to say that getting Japan to attack the considerable holdings of the Western Powers in East Asia had been German policy since Arthur Zimmerman proposed it in 1917. As to Italy, Hitler mentioned it in Mein Kampf as one of the two European powers that Germany should try to enlist as an ally in the coming war (the other one was England). 24.196.64.186 (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the Third Reich was a totalitarian dictatorship, Hitler did not need to rely upon objective anthropology that would have shown such peoples as the Poles and Czechs as similar and that German peoples had absorbed large numbers of Slavic ancestors. Objective history would have shown more legitimate achievement among Jews (who while domiciled in Europe had surely incorporated much "Aryan" ancestry) as menace. Totalitarian states can always enforce the fantasies of leaders as alternatives to objective science and history through suppression of "troublesome" material.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler showed such admiration of Japanese cultural and technical achievements as well of the samurai culture that he could only conclude that the Japanese were really "white". As for Italy, the country may be less "Nordic" than such nemeses as France and Poland which Hitler hated for reasons best left to a discussion of his weird view of the world. Such countries as Italy and Hungary (in view of the ethnic origin of the Magyars partly from non-European tribes) became partners of the Third Reich because they were "available".

Hitler in fact wanted Britain as a partner in his crimes (again according to Mein Kampf) and would have found Britain compatible so long as it avoided entanglements in the "Continent". The Soviet Union was a potential partner, and could have picked up some pieces of the British colonial empire (most notably British India) in the event of an utter defeat of Britain and significant chunks of China in the event of a collapse of China before Japan. --Pbrower2a (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is all about bias and prejudices. Why is there a binding regulation to use "Nazi Germany" and all articles? Nazi is a depreciative term, and when affixed to a ethnic denomination it is structural racism. It's like Yankee USA or Bolshevist Russia. To answer a question, there is no term "master race" in NS ideology. It's made up by invention for Western and Marxist influenced ideology. And no, I am not a "German". My family is from a Slavic minority living in former Prussia. We were expelled by Allies like millions else, and official Polish Propaganda stated (until recently) that these Slavs were murdered by the "Nazis" and that's why territories annexed by Poland were empty. My grandfather was in a British slave worker camp in Germany until 1950, and his brothers were killed by Poles or Russians in their ethnic homeland since centuries. Anything wrong that I said? Please correct me.

Manchukuo?

Can anyone explain why Manchukuo was added to the list of Axis Pact signatories? I have looked and not found any evidence that Manchukuo ever signed the treaty (many Axis powers did not, such as Finland, Thailand, Vichy France and China-Nanjing). 69.128.40.14 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

maybe it should be deleted?

PS. i know its a different subject... but, why in the last paragraphs of this article its says kindom of italy??? in 1944 allied italy had a king? i think not could someone change? tavy 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Croatia

I thought about re-reverting to the the version of the article that omitted this sentence: "Modern day Croatia is related to this country only by name and not it's legal predecessor." The same could be said of many of the Axis signatories; why emphasize it here? It's unnecessary and smacks of NPOV. However, I don't want to start an edit war, and suggest we discuss this first. --Yaush (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Italy summer 1943

What happened after the de:Regierung Badoglio came to power ?

Did they terminate the Tr. pact formally ?

--Neun-x (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"Tripartite"?

I myself never understood why it was still called "tripartite" after November 1940. It was blatantly clear that membership was fluid, that also other countries could join, so why keep reffering to it as a pact between 3 countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.129.22 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Germany, Italy and Japan were the only countries that counted as major powers. (81.159.7.90 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

"adherence" to the Pact

Pretty obvious that it is a case of plain poor English/translation. The correct term is "to accede to", or more colloquially, "to join". One can only adhere to sth that he has already joined/signed up to; it means "observe", "abide by". Apparently, "adhere to" could be a proper translation for an alternative version sourced from DNB -- " gegenuber tritt" Axxxion (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I found a more complete quote saying "wohlwollend gegenübertreten" (which is quite different from "gegenübertreten", but also doesn't mean "adhere to"). I added it to the section and generally tried to fix the section.

But there are several other uses of the words "adhere" and "adherence" that seem wrong and where "accede" and "accession" might be correct. I was about to change them when I found that "adhere" and "adherence" is apparently used in the source:

https://books.google.com/books?id=DdAJAQAAIAAJ&q=adhere

https://books.google.com/books?id=DdAJAQAAIAAJ&q=adherence

What to do? Is that an error in the source? Or is it an obsolete use of the words (the source is from 1956)? Should we change the confusing wording in the article? Chrisahn (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"Adhere" can me "attach", as with glue (an adhesive). To adhere to a pact may mean to abide by it or it may mean to become attached to it. I have no idea why "join" would be acceptable colloquially, but not adhere. If you think "accede" is clearer, go for it. But to my mind there are synonyms when it is clear from context that the adhering state is not already a member. Srnec (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I went ahead and changed "adhere" to "accede" and "adherence" to "accession". I think the meaning is much clearer now. I'm not an English native speaker though, so if others disagree with this change, I wouldn't be completely opposed to reverting it.

I also changed the quote marks on "spiritual adherence". The quote marks made it look like the phrase was a direct quotation, but according to Google Books, it doesn't occur in the source: https://books.google.com/books?id=DdAJAQAAIAAJ&q=spiritual+adherence Chrisahn (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm changing that one back. It is definitely a direct quotation, see here and here. I'm not sure why Google isn't showing it in that snippet search. The rest I leave as "accede". Srnec (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Good catch! Thanks. Chrisahn (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Struma and Maritsa

""Later that day, Ribbentrop promised Filov that after the fall of Greece, Bulgaria would obtain an Adriatic coastline between the Struma and Maritsa rivers.[8]"" Plain ignorance, the Struma and Maritsa fall into the Aegean Sea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.6.193 (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Names in infobox

@Peacemaker67 and OyMosby: The infobox is for quick referencing. We do not need full names. There is nothing POV about calling the state that called itself Croatia 'Croatia'. It is not injurious to Croats any more than calling Nazi Germany 'Germany' is injurious to Germans. Nor does it imply legitimacy any more than calling it the Independent State of Croatia implies its independence. Srnec (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, it was called the "Independent State of Croatia" or NDH, not just "Croatia", and most reliable sources clearly make that distinction. Using Croatia implies a link with the existing state, that is what is POV. I have no issue with dropping the "Kingdom of" from the other nations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

For the previous existing infobox there seem to be two very problematic things that stick out. One is that for example, Croatia is not the same as NDH. The Independent State of Croatia was a German-Italian installed puppet state. Just because it has the word “Croatia” in it does not mean Croatia works as a “shortened” version. It has no ties to modern Croatia the way that Nazi German does to Germany. This leads to the other issue of the infobox making no distinction between existing legitimate states joining the tripartite compared to the Slovak Republic and NDH puppet states. These are not on the same level.

This same issue occurs on the Axis Powers page where a couple of years ago the majority of puppet states listed as “puppet states” were removed from the infobox based on a new “rule” that only tripartite signed entities are to be listed. For example the Hellenic State or Albanian Kingdom were puppet states but no longer listed. However “Co- Belligerent” states are still listed. Again failing to inform the reader quickly that some of them were in-fact installed puppet states and not legitimate states internationally recognized. NDH was not comparable to Kingdom of Hungary or Bulgaria, existing countries that volunteered to join. The territory it was created on was Yugoslavia. There should be a distinct sub category labeling them puppet states. Otherwise it is misleading and pov. @Peacemaker67: What is your take? OyMosby (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The medieval Kingdom of Croatia has no ties to modern Croatia. Does that mean we cannot call it Croatia for short? Should I cite sources that uses Croatia as shorthand for the NDH? And I notice you said "Slovak Republic". How is that different from using Croatia for the NDH? Is there any term for wartime Slovakia that isn't synonymous with the modern Slovak Republic?
I propose returning the infobox to its previously streamlined form, but with NDH-Croatia. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I oppose it, unless you use either "NDH" on its own or "Independent State of Croatia". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Srnec “Slovak Republic” was the official name was it not? Notice I did not say “Slovakia”. So I don’t see what your point is. Kingdom of Croatia was a country. NDH was a puppet state. I don’t see what your point is. The kingdom of Croatia does have ties to Croatia. What do you mean? Historians deem it a predecessor state to Croatia. Historians do NOT deem NDH as a predecessor. Please review the history. Again puppet states installed by invading foreign forces are not the same as internationally recognized countries such as the Kingdom of Italy. As last time we spoke a couple years ago you claimed NDH was not a puppet state or installed by Axis powers.

I also appose it. NDH is the short for Independence State of Croatia. This is how infoboxes mentioning NDH typically follow as a format. I don’t understand the strong insistence of “streamline” as the info box is wide enough to accommodate this format. OyMosby (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(1) "Slovak Republic" is also the name of the current Slovak state. That's my point. (2) The Republic of Croatia originates with the wartime Partisan government. There is no continuity between it and the kingdom of Croatia at the state-level, same as with the NDH. (3) I never claimed NDH was not a puppet state, expressly the opposite. Check the archives again. (4) I think we need an RFC. Srnec (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(1) Right? But it was the name of the puppet state as well. That is the point. (2) I did not say continuity but predecessors. Kingdom of Croatia is historically viewed as a predecessor to modern Croatia. NDH is not as the Nurnberg Trials decided as well as historians. It wasn’t even deemd a legitimate state or country. Not sure if this is the same for Nazi Germany and Germany. I think it was deemed the predecessor of the other. So calling NDH Croatia will mislead readers to assume otherwise. That was my point. (3) You said “complicit on their own” and “not installed” [1] A Puppet state or government is installed by another entity who is their master. They are not fully independent. I hope I was more clear with what I mean. It’s difficult at times when talking about very detailed topics and nuances such as these. OyMosby (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think Peacemaker is wrong; from my limited experience Independent State of Croatia is often called "Croatia" for short. See for example The Holocaust in Croatia (book) or Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos Volume 3, has a chapter titled "Croatia". buidhe 08:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: infobox

Should the infobox give the full name of countries (e.g. Kingdom of Romania, Independent State of Croatia) or short forms (Romania, Croatia)? Srnec (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Neither On Wikipedia, Nazi Germany should almost always be used for the state of Germany 1933–1945. "German Reich" is a vague term that could refer to other regimes. buidhe 08:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Right and although as you have seen Nazi German or German Reich denoted as “Germany” at times in literature, German is not the official name for that country during that era. However, above you argued “Croatia” to be the proper name of NDH. Even though NDH is the official name. Why the difference between Nazi Germany and NDH? I’ve seen Germany used in books in place of Nazi Germany as well. Why use official name for one and not the other. Seems conflicting. OyMosby (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment not a well formed RfC, Srnec, but as a minimum, you need to provide a diff for the "current version" as it will change during the RfC no doubt (it already has). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe and Peacemaker67: I have rewritten the RfC. Srnec (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I support short names for all countries. Why should Germany and Croatia be distanced from WWII by a modifier and not Italy, Hungary, etc.? Treat them all the same. Full names clutter the infobox unnecessarily. Srnec (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Official Names. Srnec, the new infobox has “Kingdom of Hungary”, the official name, not just Hungary, so how is one being “distanced from WWII”? And no “treating” them all the “the same” would be pov and require historical revisionism (not accusing you of this, I’m saying that is what would happen if we just claim them all the same). You cannot say NDH, a German-Italian puppet state forcefully installed with eager genocidal terrorist organization put in power to let’s say the Kingdom of Hungary, a legitimate country that decided to align with the Axis powers. NDH answered to Hitler and Mussolini. And was not recognized internationally as a legitimate country. Nevermind the fact it overlapped the “Socialist Republic of Croatia”. These are the facts. I don’t see how it clutters the infobox. Readers deserve to have an accurate quick overlook. The intro should mirror this change too. Also that brings the next issue where the infobox should have a subgroup denoting which of the tripartite members were actually puppets of the other members. They were not all “the same” or on equal grounds. OyMosby (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support using the full names. None of them are the same geopolitical entity as exists today, there have been several discussions which have come to a consensus position that Nazi Germany should not be rendered as Germany, and equating the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) with modern Croatia is highly POV and not supported by sources. On my screen, the only one that uses up an additional line when rendered in full is the NDH. Why is this very minor issue worthy of spending this effort on? Do not disrupt Wikipedia to try to make a point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Initiating a discussion when you've been reverted and opening an RFC when there's an impasse is not "disrupting Wikipedia to try to make a point". Using the name "Croatia" for the NDH is not "equating the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) with modern Croatia". And this had nothing to do with Croatia, which is why I suggested NDH-Croatia as a compromise. Srnec (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

NDH-Croatia means "Independent State of Croatia-Croatia", which is completely unnecessary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose if compulsory, Indifferent if optional -> I read the above discussion I concur with @Buidhe:, but I could say all this stuff is better a kind of pride and negation question, not to be connected to such period of states that is considered shamefeul or disawoved and/or any reason, defending on political and/or common views. E.g. Nazi Germany has never been an official name, regardless German Reich may point also to other periods, it is as well ok, as shortly also Germany is as well correct, just because the Nazi era we cannot alter or rewrite history and deny countries what they were, similarly to Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary or Botswana. In an article we may once i.e. refer to the official name Second Hungarian Republic, but we will shortly later refer as Hungary, as we do all the time, regardless which Hungarian state we speak about, it is definetly ok. @OyMosby:, we don't wish to be distanced of any of our state of any period, we take proudly undertake any period, shall anything be the official name, Kingdom of Hungary may be and will be any time reffered as Hungary as well, as any other Hungarian state, shall it be republic, people's republic, principality or anything else, this fuss does not matter, it won't change the fact it has ever been Hungary since it's creation, state/country of Hungarians, etc. Consequently, for the Slovak Republic or Slovak State during 39-45, Slovakia is as well a corerct desginator, it was the state of the Slovaks, Slovakia and will be for anytime Slovak country, as the same goes for Croatia. Even our pissed of and heavily disliked Hungarian Soviet Republic may be anytime called Hungary, this kind of fashion how distance and deny former history and connection I don't find useful, as Kingdom of Romania may also cover many periods, so this distancing is really just a hypocrisy and could not be applicable at many instances. All in all, especially regarding Hungary, we really don't care here if you use Hungary or Kingdom of Hungary, both is ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

Calling the Independent State of Croatia the Independent State of Croatia is not “distancing” anything nor is it a “pride” or “negation”. Croatia is in the name so anyone can see the related history. This doesn’t seem like actual counter arguments. It was the name of the puppet state. Comparing The Kingdom of Hungary to NDH makes nonsense. They are not the same or comparable. One was an official recognized country, the other was not. Historians don’t deem it a legitimate form. It’s a fact of history. Wether one likes it or not. It cannot be denied. If it were the Kingdom of Croatia that chose to align with the Axis powers, then Croatia would make some sort of sense in your argument. Otherwise it’s a poor comparison. You agree with @Peacemaker67: so I’m not sure why you disagree with me. I don’t see what is offensive about stating the official names of the states. And I am not the only one who sees this. You can wrongly accuse me of historical revisionism all you like. It is actual historical revisionism to put NDH as same as the other states. Dishonest too. In its judgement in the Hostages Trial, the Nuremberg Military Tribunal concluded that the Independent State of Croatia was not a sovereign entity capable of acting independently of the German military, despite recognition as an independent state by the Axis powers. This is why simply comparing all entities as one and the same with same criteria is problematic. Unless the court is revisionist as well..... OyMosby (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not say calling Independent State of Croatia as itself would be distancing, and I never said it would be offensive to call countries with their official names. Regardless of some differences between Croatia and Hungary that time, I have to draw your attention that after the outbreak of the WWII the Allies and Axis Powers usually did not recognize each other's teritorial evolutions or creations, status quo changes, moreover even among the Axis there were allied countries who did not recognize their borders and status quo on some territories, if you argue on this, will be a thin ice, not recognition or international recognition would decide on this question (thus I reject my comparison would be poor, on the contrary...). NDH, Independent State of Croatia or call you like, may be called simply Croatia with no problem, it was a Croatian state and they did not omit the word Croatia/Croat from it, etc. The Axis Powers recognized the Croatian State, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

Addendum after your change: 1: I changed my vote text, I misread an edit log, Peacemaker is not mentioned now. 2: I did not accuse you of anything 3. Please have in mind the situation of that period, written earlier above, the Croatian State was rcognized by the Axis.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

4: The Nuremberg Trial is completely irrelevant, back in time history cannot be changed, also a trial made in 2069 cannot unleash the existence of the Sumerian state, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

You cannot ignore some parts of history and acknowledge others. This is Wikipedia. Are you saying all historians are invalid and not to be used on here as they are a newer entity interpreting and writing history? Where do you think what you learned about history came from? Not to mention changes of history do happen as more research is done. Hisotry is the modern interpretation of past events. Then I am not sure why you brought rewriting of history up on this page. As I explained multiple times on this page such comparison between NDH and other non-puppet states is indeed a poor comparison. Kingdom of Hungary is quite different from the NDH. Not just some differences. Also I cited the court ruling NDH as not being historically sovereign. Also, if NDH is denoted as Croatia, then what about the Socialist Republic of Croatia that overlapped the NDH the same time? So claiming NDH as the next form of the nation Croatia is not very logical. As SR Croatia was deemed the next evolution of Croatia. Now of course It doesn’t take away that the government inside NDH was run by Croats, but the state itself was a client state owned by other Axis powers. The Ustashe were still Croats, and it is still very much a part of Croatian history as it existed on its territory. So to then put NDH on the same level as the puppet masters seems again not logical. Just false equivalency. Which is partly an issue with just naming states as Croatia or Slovakia or Hungary. Kingdom of Hungary existed before, during and after WWII. It was not an installed puppet state or a form of Axis Hungary. For example your comparison would make sense if A Kingdom of Croatia or Republic existed before and during the war. I’m sorry but I really don’t understand your arguments here. Maybe I am not being clear enough in my arguments or not interpreting yours correctly. We may have to agree to disagree then. OyMosby (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not ignore any part of the history, etc. on the contary, that's why I drawed to your attention to many important things. Your question is hard to be interpreted, I did not say such and I don't see how it is connecting to the subject..(?) Hence your second question I put on hold until the first is clarified. I explained to you that i.e. regardless Slovaks consider the modern Slovakia not the continuation of the Slovak State, it does not mean the latter was not Slovakia, etc. Yes, your approach the question by puppet or other legitimacy views, that is a false approach, it does not really matter how the state was formed, if it was formed and existed. About overlapping, is the typical phenomenon of conflicting recognitions, see just Free France or Vichy France, but there are many examples, it is not decisive. Is the Hungarian People's Republic incomparable because it was established by the cheat of the Communist and was created under Soviet influence, any sovereignity would be a laughter, and I could not call this as Hungary, i.e.? You see the point? On this ground we may, really avoid and disconnect many countries from history and existent reality...(KIENGIR (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

Your example of Vichy France proves my point. It is not dubbed simply “France” in articles but denoted to alert the readers that this is a specific form related to the French. I never made the argument that “continuity” is what dictates this. That is a false premise. Again NDH is dubbed a “Joint German-Italian Puppet State”. Calling it “Croatia” is not historically accurate let alone make sense as it was not officially a form of Croatia. Again not just a pov of mine but simply how it is described by historians. @Peacemaker67: Offered his explanations above that better perhaps explains. The complexity of the subject has often lead to compilations and sometime some taking advantage of said complexities. (Not you but others in the past). As for Hungary, the Third Hungarian Republic is historically deemed a successor to the Hungarian People’s Republic. It doesn’t appear to be deemed a puppet or client state. Even though it was heavily influenced by the Soviet Union. Again not really comparable though I understand where you are coming from. It still makes sense to me that the info-box display the actual name of the entities. And in-fact there should be a sub category for NDH and FSR dubbed “Axis Puppet States”. It would be most right to the readers. Otherwise it would do the opposite of “distance” but wrongly equalize. A editor below even better strengthens my point.OyMosby (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it does not, my argument was not about name just name casting, since everyone claims it is her rightful state, even a dozen former Czechoslovak politician claimed to represent Czechoslovakia under post-Allied recognition, although the state did not exist, so we should not enter on this game, and anything what I say is not necessarily because you said it,i I just demonstarted you the situation and other aspect thoroughly. Again, it is irrelevant it was dubbed or not, you may say as well Hungary was under heavy German influence, etc. Did the Croatian state exist? Yes. Heh, the Hungarian People's Republic has been never voted, the Comunnist cheated previously the elections with their famous, so-called blue-ballot action, and yes regardless how you phrase, it was a hard puppet/client of the Soviet Union, Moscow dictated, despite the Hungarian people's will who would never vote such ever. Btw., anything may be judged easily as puppet, but not this is decisive. In history many ocuntries have been created under influence, interest or other purposes, and most of the countries were not by democratic elections or whatsoever, based on this gorund we cannot erase these countries.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

I don't see how the editor below would strengthen your point, I see the opposite.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

Read their comment about “Vichy German” and separating North/South Korea not just Korea. Also you cannot be serious again comparing Germany influence on The Kingdom of Hungary, a sovereign state that existed before, during and after the war to a puppet state created to have control in the Balkans. Haha! The Kingdom of Hungary was its own state. Not a client state. And recognized as such. You are comparing apples to oranges. They are not equivalent so comparing them doesn’t work. I keep repeating myself ad nauseam. I don’t know how to spell it out more simply. Referring to NDH as “Croatia” would be stating that NDH was a form of Croatia in general. Again, not according to historiography. It is not as if Croat was a country that then became an Axis member part of the treaty. It would be highly misleading to state NDH as Croatia in the infobox. Again Vichy France is not labeled simply as France in articles. And it doesn't matter if you believe or think Communist Era Hungary to be not legitimate, historians dictate this for us. Again, read the editor below. Germany is not comparable to the NDH. Do you have RS stating People’s Hungarian Republic to be a Soviet installed puppet state? Does it state that it was an illegitimate state and not the predecessor to modern Hungary or successor to past forms of Hungary? It’s a false equivalency comparison. And the editor has the same concern about multiple states existing at the time. “Vicy France... etc”. Read again please. As with my previouse points they do not “prove the opposite”. The sources are clear on what were the puppet states. Communist corruption is not the same. However I would still list the country as People’s Hungarian Republic as that.....was.....its....name. And that name would go into the infobox. I don’t see why not. Again, we are going in circles on this. I don’t know how to be anymore clear.OyMosby (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you tend to some kind of straw-man argumentation:

Seems to be from your end not mine, I’m afraid. Which is why this is getting tiresome. As you keep claiming to have refuted my arguments or logic without doing so. Which is what straw-manning is.... Just either stating my points as “irrelevant” or faulty. Yet you haven’t explained how they are. You do this throughout your latest response, funny enough. You may wish to self reflect you past replies. Claiming you “demonstrated why it [my point] is fallacious”. After I initially showed how your comparing of KoH and NDH to be “fallacious” to begin with. Ironically. OyMosby (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I explained them. The whole case is not about comparison, this is what you pursue, you systematically wish to declare conditions that are not conditions.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- I read the commment, and it does not support your view in reality.

Sorry, but it does. “ unless there were multiple states at the time which could cause confusion in using the short form name” OyMosby (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This general statement does not support your view.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- again, it is your point what is puppet or not puppet, I explained to you why it is irrelevant how the state was created, if it existed. It does not matter if it was continously existed or not before, irrelevant

The way in which it existed is the point. Writing it off as “irrelevant” doesn’t simply make it so. It was a state but not named “Croatia”. I never argued it was not a state. OyMosby (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, you consider something important what other are not. The state was named Independent State of Croatia, so Croatia may be fairly used.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

What “others”? I already explained how it is incorrect to assume “Croatia” from “Independent State of Croatia” it is not so simple as that. I get why now you feel strongly about your position. But I explained in detail why this is the wrong way to look at it and faulty logic. As did Peacemaker. Just restating your claim doesn’t disprove anything I said. If Russia invaded Hungarian lands, installed a puppet state “Peoples free state of Hungary” and had some right wing ultranationalist Hungarian terrorist organization run the puppet government inside it, it would not be right to call it the “Country...Hungary”. Regardless if you accept the courts and RS or not. It wouldn’t be sovereign. That’s not just my lone opinion. You are falsely giving such entity sovereignty in comparing it to a country like Italy or Romania at the time. I didn’t say it wasn’t legitimate just because it was a an a is state. I’m not explaining it that well. No you are not understanding. OyMosby (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You explained but in the end your logic is faulty, both of you have a point that I understand, that's all. Just because somebody diasagree with you and shows the probelmatic points of your deduction (thus disproved it's coherence), it does not mean his/her logic would be false. Again, calling a state on it's colloquial name does not depend how the state has been established, it is not defined by installed-puppet or ultranationalist terrorism. Again, not any courts is decisive how to name a state back in time (it's really strange yo fail to see this). Again, sovereignty is subject to POV, and yes, please try to understand, that understanding you does not mean agreeing with you, if your logical inference is not flawless. That's all.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC))

- "You are comparing apples to oranges" -> Not really, not necessarily

It is. They are not on the same grounds. One was a puppet state installed in occupie Yugoslavia. The other remained a sovereign country throughout the era. OyMosby (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, it is just your point of view, especially the level of comparison, of course, many states have different attributes, but they are still states. Irrelevant how it was established, and sovereignty is again just a POV and anyway does not change the fact of existence.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

Again being you are “very capable of understanding” how do you not understand this is your pov as well?OyMosby (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

My "POV" does not suffer from those discrepancies like yours.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC))

- "I keep repeating myself ad nauseam." -> yes, although I understand your point, but I not just simply disgaree, but demontrated why it is fallacious

Again, sorry, but you failed to demonstrate how it was “fallacious”. This is a straw-man argument. I explained why your counter-arguments do not hold up. Continuing to act as if they did doesn’t make it so. That or you really don’t understand my arguments. As your replies don’t really address them. Like how the short naming convention would impact SR Croatia, or that historical texts show NDH not to be a sovereign Croatia. So why push a pov in the infobox to pretend it was? Your replies simply label all this as “irrelevant” Not a good argument, sir. OyMosby (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not fail to demonstrate, you simply reject those arguments and continue telling yours, and your explanations did not annihilate mine, they are circling on the same approach that you favor, but it is NOT a condition (it is not about acting, I have a high level of understanding, don't worry). I reply to you everything necessarry, even more. Again sovereignity is just a POV, not a condition, SR Croatia's example would be even worse, though it is dated only from 1943, so no confusion would anyway be regarding the Tripartite Pact. Moreover, I don't push any POV, I expressed and explained my stand regarding the infobox above.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

As you rejected mine. SR Croatia existed during the war. So it is still problematic to use just “Croatia”. Arguing that there was a two year gap is not enough to break the conflicting. Sovereignty being only pov is literally your pov. Your stand is a pov. You cannot possibly claim your stand as automatic fact. Your explanation does not refute mine. OyMosby (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Two years is farely enough, to say nothing the of the other being a kind of ghost state in reality. Not literally my pov, any sovereignty those times may be subject to POV. As I said, my POV is more consistent and yes, refute the consistency of your's at many points.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC))

- "...was a form of Croatia in general" -> In general? Irrelevant, it was a form of Croatia, undoubtedly

The tribunal disagrees. Undoubtedly. NDH is not a legal predecessor to Croatia. Even if you disagree personally or don’t understand, it doesn’t matter. It was what thebUstahse wished to believe was Croatia. Hence their desperate name. Your opinion of its legitimacy is trumped by historians accounts. As are my opinions. OyMosby (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Clear straw-man, not a post-Tribunal decide back in the past and rewrite history, and it is irrelevant if it was/considered a legal predecessor or not, it is just your invention to put is a condition, not other's. As many striking examples regarding other countries, you may favor or choose predecessors or successors, but it does not mean you are forbidden to call the child on it's name. As there has been several Hungarians states that could not be regraded as legal predecessors/successors, but is irrelevant, they can be named Hungary and they were Hungarian states.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- "It is not as if Croat was a country that then became an Axis member part of the treaty." -> Irrelevant, it's not a condition

It is relevant if you want to compare NDH to the Kingdom of Hungary as you chose to do. You never really explained how they are comparable. Hungarian lands were not invaded and a state installed subservient to Axis masters did not happen. Hungary remained sovereign throughout.OyMosby (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, IRRELEVANT, states may be/have been formed at many ways/types/methods throughout history, as you were explained many times.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- I never said necessarily Vichy France should be labeled as simply France, I just showed you an example of conflicting recognition

And I showed you how your example of Vichy France crumbles your argument for using “Croatia”OyMosby (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It was just part of the more points I explained to you, you came up with claims about recognition.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- I did not made any statement of the Communist Era's legitimacy, I just demonstrated another example to highlight the weak points of your logic

That doesn’t even make sense. You used the communist influence on Hungary as being a puppet state at the time. I asked if this is true or just how you viewed Soviet influences. Doesn’t show any “weak points” in my logic. OyMosby (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not express just my view, it is history, irrelevant from my views. Yes it shows, because per your logic we could not call Hungary that country as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- I don't see anything below as you suggest

See the quote above. OyMosby (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Answered there.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- Irrelevant of RS, it is a fact what happened in Hungary, part of our history, most of the countries shared this fate in the Eastern Bloc.

You are free to view Hungary in any way you want regardless of what historians say. But not when it’s a wikipedia edit. OyMosby (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, it is not my view, it is a historical fact.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- It is only in your head, I did not speak about illegitimacy or predecessor-sucessor question, these are only your concerns, not mine, at any case it may be "Hungary", I have no problem with it

No, I spoke of it. Never said they were yours. Theybare my arguments. You have not demonstrated how they're irrelevant. NDH is deemed not a legal predecessor to Croatia. Not my pov but the facts. OyMosby (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

In your head does not deny you spoke of it, I wished to express they are just your own set of conditions and arguments, but they are not a condition or necessity in general. You've got the demonstrations, anyway again it does not matter it is or regarded a legal sucessor of not, it is just your condition, not other's, but I reiterate, if it would be like so, many countries could not be called on their name, to say nothing of declaring something as a legal successor is again could be subdued to POV by all means.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- "It’s a false equivalency comparison." -> not really

Indeed it is. OyMosby (talk)<

Nope, because the degree and level of comparison matters on the respective layers, both of were existing states (this matters), the rest you argue are other circumstances, but not decisive.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- "As with my previouse points they do not “prove the opposite”" -> the editor agreed on using short names

See the quote above. OyMosby (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Answered above.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- "The sources are clear on what were the puppet states. Communist corruption is not the same." -> irrelevant, POV, again it does not matter how the state was created or run, it is still a state

I didn’t say it wasn’t a state. It is one. A puppet state. 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

So what?(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

- "..I would still list the country as" -> I'd never objected to list anyhow

- "I don’t know how to be anymore clear" -> Don't worry, I understand you, but your points I disagree and described the problems of your arguments.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

Again, person below said, let me quote: “ unless there were multiple states at the time which could cause confusion in using the short form name”. If you still don’t see it then I cannot help you there. It is not my pov to compare puppet states and communist influenced countries. You brought that up. RS is relevant. It is a false equivalency to compare NDH and The Kingdom of Hungary. I cannot see how the can be compared as similar situations. Hungary was not invaded and a new government installed by Hitler. As was done on Croatian lands. Labeling it “Croatia” is problematic in a number of ways. As I have shown why your comparison is faulty. Here is one of the ways it is an issue. Multiple states. The editor agreed using just shorter names unless there are multiple states at the time. The comment does support my view on this “in reality”. If you disagree then there is nothing more i can do. Saying you showed Vichy feance as a example of conflicting form of recognition is literally my point. My point is conflicting recognition. It is not only in my “head” as another editor above agreed with the problem of conflicting recognition. As Peacemaker67 more cleanly put it than I “ it was called the "Independent State of Croatia" or NDH, not just "Croatia", and most reliable sources clearly make that distinction. Using Croatia implies a link with the existing state, that is what is POV.” I don’t understand you agreeing with Buidhe but not with me as we both are arguing the use of the official names. Buidhe agrees that it should be “Nazi Germany” not written as “Germany” in short. So I dont see why you agree with the use of the accurate name “Nazi Germany” but insist “Independent State of Croatia” not to be used but “Croatia” instead? You are contradicting yourself here. If you are to compare Hungary and NDH then why not compare to Germany as well?

I won't react for the quote the 4th time, may be read above. No, you introduced comparison to claim differences. Also explained above, it is not a necessity to be equal by any means it is not even possible regarding may countries. Both Hungary and Croatia were countries then, the rest is another question you consider important, the rest of your argument here are repetitions that I just answered above. Buidhe the above section agreed with Croatia, and the edit history shows elsewhere as you say about Germany.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

But you ignore when Buidhe said it should be Nazi German and not Germany in short. You are selective as is he then. 16:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I realized Buidhe made an edit possibly by mistake. Though he claims fair ambiguity, if it is about especially German Reich.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC))

You initially said “ so this distancing is really just a hypocrisy and could not be applicable at many instances.” In terms of going for official names. I disagree. It is sticking true to what these states were at the time. Not to mention there were two different “Croatias” at the time. SR Croatia is the predecessor to the later Croatia. NDH is not. It’s that simple. Pretty solid logic. And you have not successfully proved the logic wrong. Simply disagreeing or dismissing it doesn’t prove it wrong. Kingdom of Hungary is not a good example to use as it’s not the same situation. As is dictated by the history books trumps your personal opinions, “ concluded that the Independent State of Croatia was not a sovereign entity capable of acting independently of the German military, despite recognition as an independent state by the Axis powers”. But as before you will swat this away as not mattering. You state the Nurnberg Trials to be irrelevant despite them providing and giving us the historical records we use today in Wikipedia. Not liking their findings is not a good counter argument. The trials are what history is based on. Accounts of what happened. You aren’t making much sense with this. Which doesn’t hurt my argument or prove it weak or fallacious, but show your points to be as such. The noting of Vichy France even further backs my point about NDH being the correct notation. Otherwise you have to agree with calling Vichy France just France. As does the North/South Korea argument by the editor below hence why I said they add to my point overall that NDH is the correct name to use in titling. As per the official name. All these examples I bring up you have not addressed. Look I get how from the name one might assume “Oh Independent, Oh Croatia, makes sense it must be Croatia the country during that era” but despite the name it is more complicated than that. Also breaking down line by line is making this discussion harder to reply to and just longer and messy. Look I just don’t think we will agree. You casted your vote and I casted mine. We’ll see what other editors decide. I don’t see a point in continuing. Cheers.OyMosby (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the time of signing the Tripartite pact there were no multiple "Croatias". The rest are again repetition of your arguments, mostly just answered by points above, so just shortly reiterate them: irrelevant if it would be (regarded) a legal predecessor or not, this is as well subject to POV. (and yes, I sucessfully demonstrated your logic's fallacies, even if you could not read yet my answer here and above, and yes, just because you set up POV conditions, it does not mean thay are in fact, etc. explained above). You again reiterate your comparison between Hungary with such conditons that are irrelevant, and has been as well explained why. I did not say what you try to address to me regarding the Nuremberg Trials, what I said may be read above, that not any post-trial may change history back in time (it is not about liking, it is a fact, they don't have time machine and your iteration about this is just a wished support for your set-up condition that is not a condition, etc.). And yes, I systematically demonstrated and now reinforced the weaknesses/fallaciousness of your logic, the rest are again repetitions I answered above. Please try to understand, Croatia was a state, that matters, it was a Croatian state, including the name Croatia. That's the point. Yes, both of us expressed our opinions. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

Maybe I’m really missing something here but I still don’t see things completely your way. Nowhere did you “demonstrate” my points to be fallacious, weak or wrong. You can keep claiming so, but in reality this is not the case. I went in detail as to why your Hungary comparison and Use of the word Croatia in the name “Independent State of Croatia” are very much misleading, inadvertently probably, and based on a incorrect premise. I explained why that is. I do not just make these claims without explaining how and why. I also do not simply disregard your arguments as “irrelevant” as you do with mine. So not sure where I am throwing out your arguments. I address all of them. I don’t ignore them. ” I systematically demonstrated and now reinforced the weaknesses/fallaciousness of your logic” You haven’t. And I’m not going to re explain how your “demonstrations” are flawed. The trials are a part of history themselves. How are they a “clear straw-man” to bring up? You may want to double check the meaning. Otherwise you are orchestrating a situation where it is impossible to disagree with you as history and official findings are not allowed to be used. The trials ARE history. They don’t REWRITE history. Any historical book from after 1946 is invalid now? The trials followed immediately after the war to understand what happened. What am I missing here? Or even earlier? Disregarding them as if it were irrelevant and claiming therefore you are right is the definition of a Straw Man argument. You didn’t disprove anything in doing so. And this is getting really frustrating to be simply discredited or written of in such a way. You never explained how the court findings “rewrite history” as you boldly claim they do.

By your logic anytime someone brings in evidence it is “inventing standards or demanding criteria” or “ones own conditions or necessities”. How are you the lone arbiter of what is and isn’t general standards and conditions? You stated “ post-Tribunal decide back in the past and rewrite history, and it is irrelevant if it was/considered a legal predecessor or not” so I know I did not misquote you. How are you not applying your own criteria and “truths” in your own head? Simply hypocritical to do so. Have you not applied your own standards and conditions to this conversation this whole time? You are shooting yourself in the foot. Think about that for a moment. Historians have told us what the history is. Where did you learn what you have from? History books I’d imagine. So ignoring the trials is ignoring history and the facts. Are you going to ignore all the post WWII trials where so much was learned about what was going on? Counting the findings irrelevant is so unbelievable I don’t know how to even reason with such stance. Saying my points or those trials are “irrelevant” or “only important to you” is not a weakness or fallacious on my part. Quite the opposite. I’m gonna have to believe the courts and historians over your views (that is what pov means, your views your stance on the matter. Your stance is not objective truth). Also you know what I meant by calling out your “in your head” statement. Again you belittle my points as if they are only valid to me and not in general. Again, not a good argument against them.

As for, Buidhe said it should be Nazi Germany and not Germany in short while same time claiming “Croatia” to be fine. Even though NDh and Nazi Germany are the official titles. Strange. Not very consistent. You are being selective as is he then. Also even though Nazi Germany was the title at the signing as Buidhe states, he also states that German Reich would be confused with other German nations of other times. If you agree with him, you also agree that 1943 SR Croatia would be conflicting. Keep in mind there was just the one German state at the signing, no? Do you see the holes in your logic now? Also for your new point that there was not other “Croatia” at the signing. (Even though there was not a sovereign one then at the time either). There was during the WWII. So it would conflict to list as such in the infobox. It would just confuse the readers. Also were did Banovina Croatia go in 1941 exactly? Again. claim what you wish. But you cannot just ignore my answers and pretend you successfully defeated my points. You simply used your POV conditions to “demonstrate the fallaciousness and weakness” of my “POV conditions”. Your examples are weak from the foundation. You stated your opinions, as you admit. Your opinion is not inherently fact. I stated my opinions too. But the trials and historical sources are not my opinion. Sorry, no offense, but I’ll take a scholar’s or the Nuremberg trial findings view over either of ours. History is analyzed after it happened. Through research and analysis of documents later on. How exactly do you think Wikipedia works? It uses the findings by historians and authors who did the analysis and made their determinations. The trials are heavily used in this research. Else write to the participants of the trials telling them how you think they got it wrong and are simply revisionists. Ain’t gonna work, Chief. How did you learn about WWII and NDH, Hungary, etc? Modern history books one would think. Or were you there to witness what really happen? How is your word worth more than anyone else’s? Especially the court’s? Let alone just toss them out as irrelevant or ignore them. Where do you get your standards from for your arguments? Why is your standard correct and mine wrong? Again, the foundations of your points or logic aren’t solid from the get go. Fact is the NDH is and was not officially called, named or went by the name “Croatia”. It was not sovereign. It was at all times controlled by Nazi Germany and partly Italy. It’s a historical fact. Not seemingly as Hungary was by Communists as you attempted to compare. Yugoslavia was temporarily occupied by Axis forces and the NDH erected illegitimately. Not some “corrupted elections” or simply “influenced” as there was not country of Croatia for the Axis Powers to influence or take over the way Hungary was by Soviets as you say. None of these things you successfully rebutted. Stating they are “irrelevant, invented standards, weak etc” are not proving me wrong or my arguments not standing. There really isn’t much more to be said. We are both just repeating back and forth. Over a very small edit to one article. I just want to add that though we may not agree, it’s fine. We can’t always agree. We are both thoroughly convinced of our arguments. However if you feel you really did defeat all my logic and arguments. Then there is no point continuing this conversation. Neither of us is convinced of the other’s stance. I hope no hard feelings in all of this. Take care and have a nice day. :) OyMosby (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Peacemaker, comment's should be more short and less philosophical, you really extend and in a way deteriorate from the subject not necessarily belongs here. I will try to answer all of your questions, but will try to remain as short as possible, given the fact you have many repetitions:

- (A) Think like mathematical inference consisting of quantors and logical statements as a deduction; such statements has to be consistent existencially and universally, avoiding contardiction or inconsistency), this fails by your logic and argumentation.

- Repetition about comparison HU-CRO, you started this, but it is irrelevant, since the level and degree of comparison matters (Germany would as well differ from Italy or Hungary, as an apple from and orange, but both of are fruits, as those mentioned here countries/states.

- No I did not ignore you or your argumentations, irrelevancy I referred to those argument that does not satisfy (A) = irrelevantly put condition being not decisive or consistent

- Do you understand that a court declaration or decision is ineffective back in time? (= does not influence past happenings, because it would harm causation) I did not say anything would be invalid after 1946, but please a court decision in e.g. 2046 about the Parthian Empire won't change anything happened then Anno Domini. Do you understand this principle? (the problem is you connect all of these of the fallacious inference on the question of sovereignty, that is irrelevant to the country's name)

- My standards - explained above - did not suffer such inconsistencies like yours. Objectivity means not just knowing one standpoint of history/historians, but the most as possible, but we should not fail the synthesis of them. Please try to understand the Nuremberg-sovereingty inference line is totally failed, irrelevant to the naming of the country, this is the point you don't see.

- About Buidhe, see above oen pharapgraph. I don't see holes in my logic, since there was only one Germany at the time, and one Croatia. Banovona of Croatia was not a state/country.

- Wikipedia works by it's copromised guidelines and rules. Again, please do not confuse the Nuremberg Trials and jurisdiction back in time, becuase it is a completely failed way, not even legally, but in theory, principle. (if a future court will make a decision/declaration in 2078 that the Hungarian Soviet Republic had been the most powerful ecomony of the world, it won't change back in time the happenings in 1919. In other words, you may have opinions, studies, etc. about it, but factual happening will not change. This has nothing to do with revisionism as you try to address, etc.) Conqsequently , your poetrical questions at your section around this to me has been already answered in the above points, again, think a bit mathematically, the general problem you try to assert some things if it would be a condition or supportive to your arguments, but they are in fact NOT a neccessary conditons or prerequisites, etc.

- Yes, officially it was called Independent State of Croatia, as Kingdom of Hungary, German Reich or Kingdom of Italy or Slovak Republic, but we usually call these with their short names in any era since their existence, they should not be ommited, no reason for that.

- Last but not least, again you try to attach the soeveregnty question and comparison with Communist Era Hungary, seing differences, in fact there have not been any real difference at all general terms in your deduction, respectively if you really claim and connect the question to legality or sovereignty. If such you uphold, majority of the countries could not be called on their name, as in history it is very rare that beautiful democratic and legal free will decided upon a country's affairs. No hard feelings, take care and have also a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC))

• Just Germany - Battle of the Bulge and Second Battle of El Alamein are illustrative - they list Germany, and not "Nazi Germany." The fact is, the state in question was unequivocally the German state at the time - there was no competing state such as a Vichy Germany. At the time, Germany was Germany, and there is no confusion that at that time what "Germany" would mean. In fact, "Nazi Germany" was not the official name, by any means (in my knowledge). Korean War shows North and South Korea, not Democratic People's Republic of Korea or Republic of Korea. The point is, there is no confusion about what these terms mean - there is no confusion about Germany being Germany, whether controlled by Nazis or some other party. "Germany" is sufficient, and the other names should be shortened to just Hungary, etc., unless there were multiple states at the time which could cause confusion in using the short form name. The articles which are WLed can explain what the state of the German state was, it is not the job of an infobox to cover this - it should show the simplest understandable and formal terms. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

In response to the 'it would be POV to call it Germany', I have to say it is doublethink or something similar to say that Nazi Germany was somehow not Germany. Maps at the time called it Germany. Calling it 'Germany' does not say that Nazi Germany and Merkel Germany are the same, it's just saying that, at that time, it was unequivocally Germany. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Further Comment: I actually looked at the text of the Pact, which is the topic of this discussion. The first line states: "The Governments of Japan, Germany, and Italy..." Honestly, considering this is what the parties called themselves at the time, should we not cede to this? Does it make sense to hide behind modern labels when at the time they called themselves Germany, Italy, and Japan? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest that editors try to be brief and clear rather than TLDR back-and-forth posts, which drive away other editors and mean that we get a weaker consensus (if of course we get one). Buidhe, I am highly familiar with a wide range of reliable academic sources specifically about the NDH, and it is always first described as the Independent State of Croatia, not just "Croatia". Using Croatia for the title of a book or a section of a wide-ranging encyclopaedia (most likely for brevity) is one thing, using Croatia for shorthand for the NDH in the first instance is a completely different thing. After being introduced it is usually called the NDH (or Croatia). In this case, brevity is less important than clarity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Short forms Infoboxes should just give basic facts without too much clutter. The short forms are sufficient, and the rest can be included within the article body. At least for Germany, Italy, and Japan, I can agree with El cid, el campeador that those titles are sufficient. I also note that, for some countries, a lot more than just two suggestions have been put forward. If this thread fails to reach a consensus, we might consider putting each country's name to a vote individually to see what is the consensus for each name. Homemade Pencils (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see the point. Are you proposing to keep the current flags and internal links while replacing the country's official names with a short one? Am I right? Alcaios (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Full names. The full names do not add a lot of clutter and are accurate. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Very weak Support I get both sides of the argument, many of these nations are not quite the same entities as a short name might imply. But a long name might be overly verbose.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment people are putting "Support" or "Oppose", but the RfC is phrased "Should the infobox give the full name of countries or short forms?" There are "Support" votes for both of these options, which makes this difficult to follow. Harrias ^talk 11:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Short forms per Homemade Pencils and, especially, El cid. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Long forms the names have to be speecific enough to avoid confusion. WP:PLA. Notrium (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• As much as possible use the names as they appear on the document itself. If that's not plausible, use official name (which includes "German Reich"). Zero^talk 16:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment "Nazi Germany" is an era in the history of Germany, and not the name of the state at the time. Historians just call the place 'Germany', and that's what we should use as a result. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Relationship between this agreement and "The Axis"

It's important to be aware that "the Axis" both 1) wasn't a formal alliance as such and, 2) pre-existed the Tripartite Pact (otherwise we wouldn't have separate articles on The Axis and the Tripartite Pact). All the countries that signed the Tripartite Pact are generally considered to have been Axis countries, but other countries that did not sign it are generally considered to have been part of the Axis (albeit with various caveats). To see that this is so please consider the following 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 aligned 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.

The above focuses especially on Finland because this is typically the example considered, but it could just as easily be Thailand (didn't sign the TP but is typically considered to have been Axis) or the various Japanese puppet states. "The Axis" was a web of various agreements, only one of which was the TP. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Great! Now, can you please add a new section to the main entry that offers this explanation, as well as a "See further" cross-reference? - Aboudaqn (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be mostly correct, although I am only slightly familiar with this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Questionable text

The Tripartite Pact was directed primarily at the United States. Its practical effects were limited since the Italo-German and Japanese operational theatres were on opposite sides of the world, and the high contracting powers had disparate strategic interests. As such the Axis was only ever a loose alliance. Its defensive clauses were never invoked, and signing the agreement did not oblige its signatories to fight a common war per se.

I see the following problems:

1. Were these sources say that the Pact was directed primarily at the United States? Was it?
2. This is mostly known as an offensive, not defensive pact.
3. The cited source is actually about the responsibility of Finland. Why it is here?
4. This does not belong to the lead because this is not a summary of anything on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree. If not explained in the article body, it has no place in the lead. Pavlor (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• The early part relies on The A to Z of U.S. Diplomacy from World War I through World War II. This is not the sort of high-quality source we would want for a statement of such importance as "The Tripartite Pact was directed primarily at the United States". It is also hard to accept on face value that the German-Italian part of the Axis wasn't a close alliance, which is cited to the same book. The second bit is cited to a specialist legal text about Finland and its role in the war, and while its quality appears academic on face value, we need a source that has examined the nature of the Axis as a whole instead of a small aspect of it. With its current sourcing, this para shouldn't be in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• (1) That the pact was directed primarily against the United States is common knowledge if you know anything about the pact at all. Just read it. Article 3 is directed against "a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict" and Article 5 excludes the Soviet Union. Who do you think they have in mind? Restored with source. (2) It was a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. Both of these basic facts are mentioned in the first paragraph of this article from an obscure encyclopaedia:

  Tripartite Pact, agreement concluded by Germany, Italy, and Japan on September 27, 1940, one year after the start of World War II. It created a defense alliance between the countries and was largely intended to deter the United States from entering the conflict. Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Croatia were later signatories to the pact.

  (3) The reason a source about Finland in particular is used is because it is in the context of Finland's claims to being merely co-belligerent that the fact of the Tripartite Pact's limits is relevant. (4) Nitpicking and lawyering. Move it somewhere else if you must, but do not remove it. Srnec (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: German History, 1900-1945

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 22 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kamran karamlou22(vince carter 15 the goat) (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Eklies (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)