Talk:Empire of Japan/Archive 1

Merge?
Can we merge this with Japanese expansionism? Kokiri 13:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to merge this article with that of Empire of Japan. Any thoughts on this? Kokiri 13:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Is it necessary? Sekicho 01:41, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why? Japanese expansionism is a movement or action. The Empire of Japan is a historical entity, like "Weimar Germany" or "Imperial Russia" which distinguishes it from other political eras.


 * Removed merger until it is discussed. Why merge???? Imperialism is a different concept than nationalism. There are just different. My suggestions: either 1) keep this as is (it is certainly not a stub, and people have put a lot of work into it 2) Merge it with Japanese imperialism article, which is still short. The title Japanese imperialism sounds better too.

Past discussion
I thnked why Japanese nationalism if one term,where intent to define at diverse type of nationalist ideas.i uhknowed why exist any term similar at Nazism or Fascism for defining this ideas. if totally certain why in these word stay diverse types of military and ideologycal ideas apparently disconect,but still these all ideas proceded from one ideologycal "tree".these ideas have no insanities or any for style,theirs are diffrent ideologycal branches why proceded from same ideologycal center.

There has been a proposal to merge this into Japanese nationalism. On that page there is a somewhat more reasonable proposal to transfer some material from this page over there.

Firstly, the pages should be kept separate. Japanese nationalism clearly existed both before and after the Empire of Japan.

Secondly, while there may be something to move from here to there, some concrete suggestion would be better. No doubt there are some overlaps and possible duplications. The Japanese nationalism page is quite long already.

Charles Matthews 11:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My problem is with Japanese nationalism. I am not certain that there has a coherent ideology or tenet called Japanese nationalism. We all know kamikaze, Shinto and Emperor as a living god and etc. But those are basically dead in Japan by now like nazism. For example, no one would confuses Nazism with contemporary nationalism in Germany. This is probably because Japanese nationalism reads somehow chaotic rather than coherent. (No offense for writers, the article has a lot good stuff.) Anyhow, my interest is not about the end-result; if there is two or article. -- Taku 17:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nationalism doesn't need to be a movement per se. It can also be a tendency or phenomenon. Like "American exceptionalism" which no one has ever promoted but has been a common theme in US history.


 * By the way Japanese expansionism used to redirect to this page, but I changed so it now goes to Japanese nationalism. How about separating Japanese expansionism, which includes kamikaze and other insanity, from Japanese nationalism?


 * OK, the Japanese nationalism article has now three main sections: call them pre-WWII, Macarthur period, today. The main author of the pre-WWII material - all of which has been heavily cleaned up, and some of which needs to be checked - clearly believes in the coherence. Of that time, say Taisho and early Showa. Now, I have taken out anything that relies on the Tanaka Memorial - because our page states that it was probably forged. Anything you can add on that would be good. He also believes that the expansionism was driven by particular things: anti-communism, need for raw materials in particular. I am not sure about all the theories, but he is certainly adding a very large amount of detail to the history. (By the way, I am listing pages with a major contribution from our South American friend at User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan, because they all need clean-up and some merges will need to happen. The 'expansionism' question is obviously complex if looked at from the point of view of economics (big additions of data on Empire of Japan (economic and financial data)). So, in the end, there will be quite a number of pages. I would say that 'expansionism' is going to be on maybe four main pages.


 * Anyway, at present I'm just fire-fighting, trying to edit this all into some kind of structure. Charles Matthews 18:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It just occurred to why don't we have Japanese imperialism. The term seems to fit the political practice during WWII much better. By the way, I have just found Japanese war crimes. I know I am a Japanese person, but I just cannot see how it is accurate in any sense. In any case, thanks for the work and I will find time to do something about this issue. -- Taku 00:43, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Taku, if you think Japanese war crimes is inaccurate, I would welcome your contribution &mdash; and that of others &mdash; either in that article or on the talk page. The article has undergone many changes recently and will probably undergo many more. Regards, Grant65 (Talk) 04:30, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that Japanese nationalism should simply explain various historical and present nationalistic movements in Japan. Expansionism in my view is more akin to imperialism, and the term expansionism is not often used. There _IS_ a Japanese Imperialism page, by the way. How about 1) Japanese nationalism page of various nationalist movements 2) Imperial Japan page, simply about the Dai Nippon era. 3) Japanese imperialism listing the events of Japan which some declare imperialistic (like expansion north and south, pre WWII annexations, and Japanese territory at the height of WWII.

Talk from "Japanese expansionism"

 * Note: More astute observers might notice that I've used Pinyin translation from Chinese for Mao Zedong's name and Wade-Giles translation for Chiang Kai-shek. That's because I'm entirely against Wade-Giles, but couldn't find the Pinyin translation for Chiang. I find it hard to do the changes myself when I'm dealing with names. Any observers who would notice this probably know enough to fix it and delete this unsightly note. Please do so. Incidentally, the Wade-Giles form of "Mao Zedong" is "Mao Tse-tung." The conventions for Chinese translation are almost important enough to be an issue for people like Rhoades Murphey and Edward Said.


 * The Pinyin version of "Chiang Kai-shek" is "Jiang Jieshi". However, the Wikipedia article uses "Chiang Kai-shek" as standard. GCarty 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

W.K.
i am from latinoamerica and one history afficionate,why observed the asian side,and knowed of american and european colonial bad actions in others areas.for other part one farest ancest parent are one "nikkei" why more later changed your name,and my others parents know ones ancient fishers family of same nationality why living in country during 30s and 40s times.

i treated to sended some very little book or other sources,information over topic,in my limited english writing possiblities,but lamentably my scarcy english are complicated to understanding for yours.



The Japanese Government of the times called their state "(the) Great Empire of Japan". By way of parenthesis, Japan is still an empire formally at least since the emperor system exists still.

This article may impress its readers as follows: But supposing that the Imperial Family of Japan is so noble, Japan would be still an empire obviously, and supposing that Japan is completely not an empire, it means that the Emperor and the Imperial Family should have already not existed in Japan. If Japanese have written this article, it can be said that Japanese people are as unfair as ever. Because it is obvious that the descriptions which contradict each other would have the purpose to make Japanese people look better in their own way, if so. [12:00, 22 Apr. 2005 (UTC)]
 * The Imperial Family of Japan would be very noble,
 * Today's Japan would not be an empire.

Your korean, right?

Temple name
This might be a dumb question, but why does the table under "Emperors of the Empire of Japan" have a column for the temple name if Japan has never used them? Sure Japan is in Asia, but so is Thailand and List of Kings of Thailand doesn't have a temple name column. --Bletch 19:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question. Just be bold and remove it. --Mkill 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. --Bletch 04:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

do you know any japenese leaders that were in Ww 2?
i need help with finding that.

thank you.

K*T*

I know Emperor Hirohito and Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.--Brendenhull (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Quality of English
Some of this article seems to come from a machine-translation programme. It needs an edit for grammar and style.
 * I've just been through the first half, making minor changes. However, there are a few places where the meaning is not clear enough for me to dare to change anything.  One example is the last two sentences of 6.1.1, under the heading "Manchuria":
 * "Manchukuo opened the immigration of Asians. Then they could emigrate in Manchria, the Japanese population grew to 850,000."
 * Can someone decipher that for me? And I'm guessing that "Manchria" lacks a "u," but, again, I'd rather not presume, if no one else has caught it.  Thanks!
 * Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Siberian Intervention?
I dont see any mention of the Japanese activity in the Russian Civil War in Siberia. That lasted for several years an the Japanese Empire seemed concerned with confronting Communism. Seems it should be a topic of some level in this article.Asiaticus 23:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There was not political motive. Just greedy for more land.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.137.14 (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
 * The unsigned was partially right, the Japanese intervened in part for the possible land claims. The Japanese Empire really took advantage of the USSR's relative weakness in the early 1920's, such as the mineral rights and what not.  In the Siberian intervention, they were joined with Americans in a role to save some Czech soldiers who were somewhat isolated.  As is, I agree, the Siberian intervention should be in the article.  ~ (The Rebel At) ~  05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the Japanese intervened principally to create a Siberian buffer state, in order to prevent Russia from intervening in Greater East Asia in the future. As such, it would most definitely be a political motive.  Additionally, considering Japan was the last foreign power to withdraw from the Russian Civil War, it is especially necessary that their role is discussed in the article.

Population
Is the population of 200 million in the infobox a total of all the people within the Empire at its peak? Japan alone was only about 100 million. GrahamBould 12:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

pacific war
lacks the invasion of french indochina of 1941 and 1945 sections. Paris By Night 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Japan still today an Empire?
Is it? --89.97.35.70 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what it is. But there is name difference 'Nihon-koku' and 'dai nippon teikoku'. I don't think it is an empire, there is distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.40.178 (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only a change of the designate of the country. The same guy was still the emperor of Japan.- &#9993; Hello World! 03:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A state which has an emperor as the head of state is an Empire.

Graeme374 (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Empire" is usually reserved for absolute monarchies, but not always. For example, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is occasionally referred to as an "Empire", such as the Order of the British Empire, although the U.K. is a parlimentary democracy, like post-1947 Japan. Japan's not normally called an empire nowadays, to avoid confusion with the "Empire of Japan", which was Japan from 1868 to 1947. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to call Japan an "empire" today. In Japanese, the Empire of Japan was 大日本帝国, lit, "Great Japanese Empire," whereas the modern country is simply 日本 or 日本国.  (Note the lack of 帝国/empire.)  Furthermore, the Emperor now has no power whatsoever, so he's an "Emperor" in name only.  Additionally, the English word "Emperor" is not 100% appropriate for describing the Emperor, and there is a distinction in the Japanese language.  Emperors who rule Empires (e.g. Roman Emperor, Chinese Emperors, etc.) are referred to as 皇帝 (lit. emperor emperor), whereas the Japanese Emperor is referred to as 天皇 (lit. heaven emperor).  The fact that the Emperor is referred to as an "Emperor" in English is due to historical reasons, not due to the fact that he rules an empire.  And finally, Japan has no conquered territories, so it is in no way an "empire".  (Although, some Okinawans and Ainu may slightly disagree with that statement or feel as though they are not treated 100% fairly, but that is different from those locations being "conquered territories".)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.112.115.99 (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Area
19,167,000 square kilometres? That's sixty times as large as Japan itself. There's only one word for that, and that's 'wrong'. Bruce Gordon gives 7.4m sq km, but that's still including 'occupied' territories (including puppet Manchukuo and simply militarily-controlled south-east Asia). Could we not get a proper estimate for the actual empire, reflecting both the area and the population (which, estimated merely as 200,000,000, is inadequate and probably equally wrong)? Bastin 22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * May be a conversion issue, since 7.4m square miles is also shown here. Neier 23:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag revert war
What's with the revert war over the flag on this page? Either sort it out reasonably in discussion or drop it; you've both surely violated WP:3RR by now. Xihr 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Occupation of Japan. It has been disputed there what should be use the image of flag. Now, I have replaced flag to the temporary image "Sin bandera" (question mark) according to those discussion. So, don't worry Xihr. I believe that the edit war has finished right now.--Gettystein 10:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How about: move War-related sections out of article
The sections


 * 7 War crimes during World War II
 * 8 Path to defeat
 * 9 Influential personnel

Aren't really about the "Empire of Japan," they are really about WWII.

The end of WWII was definitely the end of the Empire of Japan, it is true. It is also true that these parts of the article are important information... but they don't really belong in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brain (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan and Manchuria
The creator of the pciture shown on this page's main article forgot to put Manchuria and Taiwan(and possbly other bits of China). 71.194.63.161 (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New maps
I made a few maps that may be relevant to this article. Please include them if you see fit, and let me know if I need to make corrections to any of them. Emok (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Prehaps we should add a date to its (This pAGEs') name?
The term Japanese Empire or Empire Of Japan can be used for Japanese history from 660 B.C. to Present. The name can be changed to Empire of Japan (1868–1945) or History of Imnperial Japan (1868–1945) --82.134.154.25 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor
The first sentence of this section is as follows:
 * Facing an oil embargo by the United States as well as dwindling domestic reserves, the Japanese government decided to execute a plan developed by the military branch largely led by Osami Nagano and Isoroku Yamamoto to bomb the United States naval base in Hawaii, thereby bringing the United States to World War II on the side of the Allies.

I find it unclear for two reasons: It's out of place (I think it belongs after the lengthy quote that follows), and the phrase, "thereby bringing the United States to WWII on the side of the Allies," seems to imply that the Japanese attacked for the purpose of making an enemy of the U.S., which, of course, makes no sense. The reason for the attack is given later in the section. I propose to move the first sentence to later in the section, with minor revisions. But I'm new at contributing to Wikipedia, and don't want to take too many liberties. Do I have support for making this change? Thanks! Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

冒頭箇所
こんにちは. 日本語話者ですので日本語で返信させていただきます. 英文は理解しておりますので英語で投稿ください. 言語上の制約がありますので、もし日本語が読めないようですと機械翻訳などをご利用ください. 中立性については複数の文献を用意できており、すでに投稿いたしました. すべて大学（公的機関）により公表された紀要ですので、一定の客観性があるものと考え引用しております. 大日本帝国については、「国号として、法的に、正式に制定されたものではない」 もので、国号の呼称は慣用上のものです. つぎに国体としての大日本帝国は滅亡したものではなく、憲法の改正と天皇主権から国民主権に主権が委譲されたものです. これは国体論として日本の憲法学では重要な論題であり、多数の文献があります. すべて日本語文献ですので、もし日本語を解されないようでしたら残念ですが、機械翻訳などを利用して一読いただければと考えます. よろしくお願い申し上げます. --大和屋敷 (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracies
Another editor has claimed against popular acceptance that the Empire of Japan was founded 660 B.C.E.  and still exists today. The editor also deliberately changed the "form of government" from "Absolute monarchy" to "Constitutional monarchy", and added a whole section of content in Japanese. The full list of changes can be seen here:. TEK (talk • e-mail) 18:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 日本語を解さない方が日本の文献をよまずに「検証可能性を満たさない」と主張されても大変困惑いたします. すでにリバート合戦になっておりますので再度のリバートは当分ひかえます. TEKさんは文献を検証されておられますか？ちょっと不安なのですが｡｡｡--大和屋敷 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

年代･国号
まだ修正されていませんが、間違っていますよ. 大日本帝国はいつ建国されたのですか？いつ滅亡したのですか？大日本帝国憲法が制定されたのは1889年（明治22年）2月11日ですよ. 日本国憲法が施行されたのは1947年（昭和22年）5月3日じゃありませんでしたか？昭和天皇は廃位されたのですか？「大日本帝国」という国号はどの法律によって明記されているのですか？--大和屋敷 (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * this is the English wiki talk page .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Superpowers
I've never heard of the Empire of Japan being referred to as a superpower. Can someone cite this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.222.247 (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Me too. The cat should be deleted.--Bukubku (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Superpower" is a post-nuclear weapons term, at the least - Japan had a very powerful military at the beginning of the war, but they weren't able to project this power anywhere over the globe the way that the USA or the USSR could in the Fifties to the present.  Their military was stretched about as far as possible at the height of the empire in '42. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * Hammer's correct. "Superpower" is a post-World War II term. The pre-World War II equivalent of a superpower is a "Great Power". Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

'Absolute Constitutional Monarchy'?
Can someone justify the use of this term at the top of the page? It would seem to be contradictory and nonsensical. What is an 'absolute constitutional monarchy'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.70.83 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An 'absolute constitutional monarchy' is a nation with an authoritarian monarch but with a seperate head of government (often powerless). Whereas an 'absolute monarchy' is a system where the monarch acts as both head of state and government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.152.180 (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dutch East Indies / Indonesia
Article is missing considerable info about the significant role of the Japanese empire with regard to the Dutch Empire, specifically the Dutch East Indies ie invasion, occupation, liberation, revolution of Indonesia, etc. Just an observation. Krgds, Karl --KARL RAN (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

ps. Also in the infobox. --KARL RAN (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

large sections of the article are unreferenced
I'm surprised more people haven't screamed about this. 16:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs)

Today Part Of
The Today part of section should include the extent of Japanese territory during the war, this would include The Philippines, The pacific islands, Indonesia and the Indo-China Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacsam2 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)