Talk:Axis powers

Wikipedia requires that all content be verifiable, for this reason no country will be listed in the infobox as an Axis power unless independent, reliable sources on the topic of WW2 can be presented explicitly describing them as an Axis power. If you want a country to be included in the infobox, please find sources to support this before opening a discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2025 (2)

Put category of fascism behind of category of Axis powers (I.e. fascism as the first category Axis powers second) 2601:902:C180:5800:C0BA:DF54:56CC:9611 (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the Axis countries were fascists, though most were. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Japan was never a member of either the Pact of Steel nor non-existent Axis Pact. If it had been, Japan and USSR would have been at war while Germany and Italy were. In fact even after Stalin betrayed the Japanese/Soviet Trade and Friendship Pact, undermining efforts of USSR invaders and the Allie’s blockade, Japan did NOT declare war on the USSR in return.
the Tripartite Pact, a mutual defense pact against the USSR, Japanese Prime Minister Fuminaru Konoye and Givt considered nullified betrayed by Hitler’s Nazi-Soviet Pact with Stalin.
When despite forced to attack Pearl Harbour, FDR still couldn’t get Congress and the American people 90-96% against war with Hitler even if Britain fell,
Hitler betrayed everyone he knew declaring war on America in hopes Japan would feel obligated to declare war on the USSR, forcing its unconditional surrender and Germany freed from 2 front war and ignore Allied blockade and bombing campaigns.
Japan did NOT.
sadly this proves the Anglo-Americans the worst proponents of propaganda to this day. ~2025-36476-07 (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should antisemitism be mentioned as a motivation for invading the USSR?

Roughly the fifth paragraph down in the Major Powers/justifications for war section, motivations for Germany's attack on the USSR are mentioned. Includes "living space", anti communism, etc. Maybe this could be lumped into the latter, but given what Germany ended up doing it seems worth calling out explicitly. They weren't just anti communist, they viewed communism in the ussr as part of a Jewish conspiracy against the world and Germany specifically.

In the Poland section it might be worth calling out too, given that Hitler & co. hated Poland and wanted to wipe it out, and it had a high percent of Jews in its population prior to the war. Their general nastiness really doesn't come through in this section. ~2025-41653-87 (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Anti-semitism was a minor reason for both invasions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly used in propaganda justifying Barbarossa (see the citations to Jewish Bolshevism#Nazi Germany) but doubtful how much of a part it actually played. DeCausa (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that that was on my mind as I read that article recently. Fair enough, thanks ~2025-41653-87 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requnest

Shouldn't the infobox include the Italian Social Republic separately of fascist Italy, given it was a Nazi puppet state? ~2026-92832-1 (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does sourcing exist listing the Italian Social Republic as a member of the Axis distinct to pre-1943 Italy? FOARP (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but as I said, is it really approaote to lump a legitimate ally and Nazi puppet together? ~2026-92832-1 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes?
Or put another way, do sources distinguish between "legitimate allies" and "illegitimate allies"? From my perspective (and for that matter, that of the allies) the whole axis was a criminal band, so the idea of some of them being "legitimate" and others being "illegitimate" seems less than an entirely obvious one, so it would need sourcing to demonstrate that it is something we should say on this page.
At present the Peace of Cassibile and the existence of the Salo Republic is already covered in a footnote, why do we need to add to that? Since the Hungarians also attempted to defect from the Axis and had a puppet government imposed on them by Germany in Operation Panzerfaust, should they also have a separate listings for Hungary pre-and-post-Panzerfaust?
This article can certainly be improved on, even (especially?) the infobox, but what is needed is grounding in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was even a Bulgarian government-in-exile. Srnec (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Salo Repulbic was a puppet state that’s why, also all the examples you listed were puppet governments within a military occupation, so they really shouldn’t count because they weren’t even nominally states ~2026-14038-79 (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These are your own reasons why you think that countries should and shouldn't be listed. They are not what reliable sources say - reliable sources do not simply not include some states within the Axis just because they were puppet states or even "puppet governments within a military occupation".
There's certain ways of thinking about how countries were related to each other during the second world war that seem to come straight from games like Hearts of Iron. Real life is more complex. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]


new Edit request: I think it makes sense to add a quote to https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/03/15/the-axis-of-tyrannies/ to clarify that the Benito Mussoliny used the term Axis in the sense of a pivot around which yourope should turn — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-15271-20 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not, and read wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we essentially already paraphrase this quotation in the article. What would quoting verbatim add? FOARP (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Nazi Germany"

To my knowledge "nazi" was never a term used by them historically and is just an insult. Therefore should it not be referred to as "National Socialist Germany" I'm not trying to be sympathetic to them it's just historically accurate. It would be like if someone were to refer to a left wing party as "The Wimp/Wimpy Party" or something like that. ~2026-20913-43 (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMMONNAME. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
how about officially known as in brackets Idkwhattoputhere18172 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because in my opinion it's more accurate to use their self described term rather than an insult (which makes it sort of biased) however like I presume you were trying to say "nazi" is more recognisable so it would make sense to put their official term next to it (as well as the fact it brings more attention to any white supremacists or national socialists using the term national socialist to avoid people noticing it since they may believe it's a harmless left wing ideology) basically I think it would just do better for the world for major sources like wikipedia to teach people of the official name of the party (translated of course) Idkwhattoputhere18172 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the Axis powers were not simply "far-right"

In this article in the first paragraph, the Axis powers are all described as far-right. That is a woefully simplistic description of the fascist governments in those countries. Their structure and behavior were far more complicated than simply far-right or far-left. ~2026-21675-46 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point, especially because far-right is not sourced in the lead, and the term is not discussed in the body of the article. I don't have the opportunity to dive into this right now, but I'll put a cn-tag. Lova Falk (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ideology section which mentions they were aligned with far-right ideology in a broad sense but perhaps there is a better way to rephrase this since they were not ideologically identical. Mellk (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, which one was not "far-right"? Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with far-right the moment there is a source that says far-right. Lova Falk (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"far-right" and "nazi" or "white supremacist" are not the same. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that is why we need a citation that calls them far-right. Regardless of how long this claim has been in the article. Lova Falk (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then tag it, do not remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, I did not remove it, I tagged it. Lova Falk (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are coorect, sorry. Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/nazi-germany-imperial-japan-anti-comintern-pact Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is useful, but it only explicitly refers to Germany and Japan as having far-right governments. Mellk (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it will not be hard to find one that says Italy was (after all, they invented fascism). Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder if there is a better way to phrase this. For example, the entry for "fascism" in The Oxford Companion to World War II says: "Inevitably, perhaps, the hysterical nationalism which was inherent in each branch of the fascist movement excluded the possibility of true harmony among them, and the Axis powers did not display any great degree of common 'fascist' purpose during the war." (p. 275) Mellk (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we say far-right, as it encompasses both facsim, nazism and any other far-right ideology. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This "hysterical nationalism" (i.e. ultranationalism) is mentioned as a cause of disunity. We could be a bit more specific and say that there was an overlap in ideological leanings and ambitions. Mellk (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its one line in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then instead of "united" we could say "shared" or something. Mellk (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That could work "shared similar far-right ideas". Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment we have "united in their similar far-right positions" but I think "shared similar far-right positions" works better as you have suggested. Mellk (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think "united in similar far-right positions" is better, because it leaves some room for differences between them, whereas "shared similar far-right positions" is more of a claim that their positions were identical, which they were not. Lova Falk (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think "lacked comparable coordination and ideological cohesion" clarifies this? But your change is still an improvement. Mellk (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it does. However, the first part of the sentence should preferably not contradict the second part. But Mellk, "shared" or "united" is not a big issue for me, so if you feel like changing it the way you prefer, please do. Lova Falk (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Perhaps an alternative wording could be suggested but I think we are okay for now. Mellk (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since Slatersteven asked: Finland was not far right. Srnec (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not a far-right regime, but far-right ideology did play a role, for example Finnlands Lebensraum. Mellk (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
". Its principal members were Nazi Germany, the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan." and we do not say Finland was an Axis country "Although Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact, it fought against the Soviet Union alongside Germany in the 1941–44 Continuation War, during which the official position of the wartime Finnish government was that Finland was a co-belligerent of the Germans whom they described as "brothers-in-arms".". Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We do say Finland was Axis. It is in the infobox and in the contemporary Axis propaganda poster image in the infobox. Srnec (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Official position of wartime government was that they were a co-belligerent of the Axis against the USSR and United Kingdom during the Continuation War, but generally considered to be a member of the Axis". So we say historians say it, we do not say it in our voice. But we could say "excluding Finland". Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.