Talk:Germany–Japan relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleGermany–Japan relations has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 18, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
April 5, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Move

Why has this article been moved from Japanese-German relations to German-Japanese relations? I am not sure which is right.

March 05

The two nations were allies in World War II, and this is seen by many historians as the starting point for "unique paths" in the development of both countries that, in similar ways, eventually led to totalitarianism. <- Unless Japan and Germany are totalirian regimes now (after WWII) this sentence makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.159.20 (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there any more cultural exchanges? I have heared German language used to be quite popular in Japan.

Düsseldorf has a large Japanese community! 27 Feb 2006

This site is so meaningless. Do German and Japanese Politicans have nothing to say to each other and the world - being (still) the second and third wealthiest nations on this planet? Are relations really only based on trade? This question seems interesting to me - in particular when considering technological and social matters. March 2006

move warring

Knock it off already. There is no agreed right or wrong name for this article, it has been moved three times in its history. futureperfect, the WP rule you quote applies to foreign language transliterations, which this is not. The other guy makes the better point, all articles in this category should have matching names. Shall we take it to 3O? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want
WP:NAME, a policy: "name the article with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize – usually the most commonly used name". The, by far and away, most natural and most frequent English form, in this and the majority of similar cases, is the adjectival one, so much so that the nominal compound form is rendered virtually ungrammatical. Look at the google searches: "German–Japanese relations" 15,500 ghits, "Germany–Japan relations": 26 ghits, including the Wikipedia article, and most of the rest being from non-native writers of English. You will find the same situation with a huge lot of other name pairs. Competent English speakers don't talk about "Germany–Japan relations", just as they wouldn't talk about crossing the "Germany–Poland border", don't watch "France–Italy talks" about "Spain–Portugal conflicts", or enjoy "Greece–Turkey friendship". All these phrases are simply not English. (By the way, it's nothing special about pairs of country names. It's precisely the same grammatical law that also makes us drink "German beer", not "Germany beer"; laugh about the "Italian prime minister", not the "Italy prime minister"; or watch a "French movie", not a "France movie".) The nominal compound forms are simply not idiomatic English. Just because some people have gone on a rampage and obsessively moved everything into a single naming scheme, sacrificing idiomaticity on the altar of misconceived uniformity, is not a valid argument for doing the same with the few remaining articles that have so far escaped. It is not a good idea to impose on the English language a self-invented uniformity that the language itself does not have. Country names are different; no single uniform naming scheme will ever fit them all, because that is just how the English language works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Peer review

German–Japanese relations

Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I substantially contributed to it during the past weeks and would love to see it being featured one day. Now, it not only presents a gapless evolution of German-Japanese relations, but is also well-organised and appropriately illustrated.

Thanks,

talk) 20:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Mcorazao comments:
Don't have time for a full review at the moment but here are some observations:
  • References:
    • Referencing is not bad but more is needed.
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • Each paragraph should have at least one citation.
Done (With the exception of one or two paragraphs. I think it's not necessary to explicitly reference the German date of surrender for instance) --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • A lot of citations reference entire books. Page numbers have to be specified (otherwise other editors cannot practically verify what is being said).
    • Inline citations (<ref>) should go after the periods, not before.
    • Also, if the books are available on Google Books it is valuable to provide a link.
  • The lead section is too short.
    WP:LEAD
    says that it should summarize the entire article.
  • Images:
    • Lots of good images. Good staggering of the images left and right.
    • Some images do not have enough information to verify that they are being legally used (e.g. OshimaHiroshi.jpg).
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • In general do not put images on the left when there is indented text (e.g. lists). The formatting doesn't look right.
    • Try not to let images cross from one section to the next. The formatting looks ugly. Reorganize the images so the image is entirely in one section.
    • The images are lacking
      alt text
      .
  • Quotes:
    • Avoid {{cquote}} unless you are actually doing a "pull" quote. The right template to use is {{quote}}.
    • In general block quotes (quotes that are separated from the prose and indented) should only be used for longer quotes (the usual guidelines is a quote of 4 lines or longer). Some of the block quotes in the article are only a single line and are better just kept with the rest of the prose.
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • Use double quotes ("), not single quotes (') unless you have quotes inside quotes.
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • Book titles should be in italics, not in quotes. E.g. "Nippon, Archiv zur Beschreibung von Japan"
  • Prose:
    • Some sentences here and there are rather long making them a little tedious to parse. Some general copy-editing, perhaps from a third party, would be good too.
Done (That is... as far as I was able to on my own) --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • "Despite pre-dating cultural contacts, official German-Japanese relations started in 1871 with both the modern German and Japanese states being founded – through the foundation of the German Empire under the leadership of Prussia and the "abolition of domains and foundation of prefectures" ordinance in Japan." A bit long and awkwardly phrased. Also "Despite pre-dating cultural contacts" This can be interpreted different ways (is pre-dating a gerund or a participle?). I think you are trying to say, "Despite the fact that there were cultural contacts before this time".
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • "Japan and Germany state the second and fourth largest economies" What does "state" mean here? Are you saying that they claim to have the 2nd and 4th largest economies (the word respectively should be included)? Preferably this should simply say they have the 2nd and 4th and ideally say "according to ...".
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • "not taken in the strict sense of the modern nation state" Be careful about adding too many qualifiers to your statements. It makes things harder to read. If you are having to qualify too much it probably means you need to rewrite a little. Perhaps the "not taken in the strict sense" qualification should be made as a separate sentence.
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • "was active in supplying weapons to the force favourable to the Shogunate." This phrasing is unclear. Does this mean he supplied the armies loyal to the Shogun? Also, this is an example of a sentence which appears a little out of context. There is no transition between this statement and the previous one.
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • "infamous 'unequal treaties' Japan was forced into"
      • Use double quotes for "unequal treaties".
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
      • The way this is stated it does not exactly sound like
        NPOV
        . For one there is not even an explanation of how they were "forced". Regardless, it is better to quote or paraphrase a notable historian or some other expert when trying to present these kinds of judgements.
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • "Knackfuss painting" An example of a case where the prose alludes to something without explaining it.
Done (Removed the reference on the Knackfuss painting and included the respective image in the article
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • "With Hitler fearing a stalemate with Great Britain, commencing to seriously plan for an invasion of the Soviet Union and Germany facing a shortage in raw materials and food[19], Berlin was also interested in a stronger alliance with Japan." Example of a long, awkward sentence.
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Some of the sections are a bit short. In general if a section has only one paragraph it probably should be merged.
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Some cases of non-English style creeping in. E.g. "700.000" instead of "700,000". Also "+15.4% to the previous year" is better phrased "15.4% more than 2005" or something similar.
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Make sure the dates follow
    WP:dates
    . E.g. "27 September, 1940" should be either "27 September 1940" or "September 27, 1940".
Done --
talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Hope that helps.
--Mcorazao (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comments! I'll try to address those issues over the coming weeks. I'd be happy to have a native-speaker rechecking my contributions here and independently correcting any errors or odd sounding bits. No matter how well one claims to speak English, it's quite difficult from time to time to ascertain whether a phrase sounds "awkward" or not. After all, I'm German - and we love excessively long sentences ;p --

talk) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Opening sentence

The opening sentence dates relations to 1871, but the main text has examples of private contracts going back to the 1690s and official relations beginning in 1860. Perhaps this is based on the idea that Germany wasn't really Germany until 1871? But the word "Germany" goes back thousands of years. It was the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" in the Middle Ages and the "German Confederation" after 1815.

On another note, was Prussia really "the most powerful of the numerous regional states in Germany" in 1860? At that time, Austria was also a member of the German Confederation. Kauffner (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified and corrected both passages. --
talk) 13:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

GA Review

This review is
Talk:German–Japanese relations/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Review

First impressions are there's some great work here Im delighted to see an article with a Groubani style info box up for GA. I'll be checking the references, pics and against all the GA criteria and hope to be back to complete the full review in a few hours. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full review

Im very pleased to promote this outstanding article. Without a doubt the best articles Ive had the pleasure to review, clearly written by editors with a solid understanding of the subject. Some great information-rich clauses like "persistent subliminal distrust on both sides" which seem to penetrate right to the heart of the subject and as a bonus appear to be original from a quick google search! In many ways it seems superior to many FA articles, and I hope it achieves promotion to that level. One of the weeknesses was the Lede, which was only borderline in its compliance with MOS. I've tried to rectify that a little, but the 3 paragraphs now in place probably need a little more expansion so they better summarise the article. For overall balance, there should probably be a little more on the post WWII relations. While there 's a good choice of public domain pics, it would probably be worthwhile to get a copyright expert to inspect them as from my non expert view the status on a few of them looks a little ambiguous. As a minor point Max von Brandt should be made into a blue link which should be easy as he has a decent entry on the DE wiki. Let me know if require me to explain any of the changes I made to the article as part of the review process. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's vews formatting

In the lead of the section Germany–Japan relations#Rapprochement, Axis and World War II (1920 to 1945), there is this quote:

It was not in the interests of Great Britain to have Germany annihilated, but primarily a Jewish interest. And to-day the destruction of Japan would serve British political interests less than it would serve the far-reaching intentions of those who are leading the movement that hopes to establish a Jewish world-empire.

Unfortunately the picture on the left can remove the indent and then it looks iike it is being stated as a fact. That's what happened to me using Google Chrome.

Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Orphaned references in Germany–Japan relations

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Germany–Japan relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cia":

  • From Palau: "Palau". CIA World Factbook. CIA. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
  • From Soviet Union: Central Intelligence Agency (1991). "Soviet Union – People". The World Factbook. Retrieved 25 October 2010.
  • From Iraq: "CIA – The World Factbook". Cia.gov. Retrieved 2011-12-02.
  • From
    CIA
    . Retrieved 15 January 2011.
  • From Guam: CIA Factbook: Guam. Cia.gov. Retrieved on 2012-06-13.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 21:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Germany–Japan relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Germany–Japan relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


History focus

This article is too focused on only history. Most articles on foreign relations have a section on history among other sections. For example, Japan–United States relations has sections on current economic relations, military relations, and historiography. Germany–United States relations has many other sections, including those on perceptions and values, as well as military, cultural, and economic relations. This article either needs to be expanded in scope, or else renamed "History of Germany-Japan relations".Tessa Bennet (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stalling"

What this article says here about Hitler "stalling" for an alliance with Japan in 1938-39 is dead wrong. Germany wanted a military alliance with Japan from November 1938 on, and so too did Japan-the principle problem was who it was to be directed against. The article does not say anything about this at all, but from late 1938 German foreign policy was essentially anti-British rather than anti-Soviet. The gigantic fleet envisioned in the Z Plan of January 1939 was not intended to fight the Soviet Baltic Fleet. With the Z Plan, Hitler took the Kriegsmarine from third in the allocation of raw materials like steel to the first place. If Hitler's foreign policy in 1939 was mainly anti-Soviet, he would not had been weakening his army in order to strengthen his navy. And until the Z Plan fleet was built, which would take several years and never was in fact, Germany needed allies with strong navies to take on Britain, of the which the two most logical candidates were Italy and Japan. A point that needs to be made here is that German naval planning in the 1930s was not based upon the guerre de course strategy that was actually followed in World War with the U-boats. The decision to go with the guerre de course strategy was an improvised reaction to the fact that in September 1939 the construction on the vast Z Plan fleet had only just began. The leadership of both the German and Japanese navies for that matter were deeply influenced by Alfred Thayer Mahan's 1890 book The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, where Mahan explains at considerable length how the greatest sea powers are always the greatest world powers, and dismisses guerre de course as a strategy. Mahan believed in big fleets centered around big battleships that would fight big battles to win command of the sea, a way of thinking that deeply influenced both the German and Japanese navies right until 1945. It is not for nothing that both the German and Japanese navies loved to build very big battleships. Admiral Erich Raeder was appropriately enough for a protégé of Admiral Tirpitz a big battleship man who wanted big battleships to fight big battles in the North Sea. For Raeder, the battleship was the queen of the seas, and for him, the bigger the battleship the better. That was the war on sea that the Third Reich was planning for. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the H-class battleships that Raeder had started to build would have been the biggest battleships of all time, indeed would had been too big to fit into dock in the world if they were ever finished, it takes time to build such truly colossal battleships. In 1939, the German surface fleet was not big enough to fight the big battles in the North Sea that Raeder planned on fighting, which is why Hitler needed allies with big navies in the interim that might divert the Royal Navy into the Mediterranean and the Pacific in order to give the Kriegsmarine a chance until the Z Plan was finished. When Britain declared war on Germany on September 3rd, 1939, Raeder grimly write in the Kriegsmarine war diary that the war had started five years too soon, and all the Kriegsmarine do now was "die gallantly". The Z Plan was supposed to be finished about 1944, but that was highly optimistic interpretation, and 1949 was a much more probable date. Hitler did not "stall" for an alliance with Japan, which he needed very badly as part of his anti-British strategy.

In November 1938, Hitler ordered Ribbentrop to convert the Anti-Comintern Pact into an anti-British military alliance. Ribbentrop was able to sign the Pact of Steel with Italy in May 1939, but as many historians have noted that the task of converting Anti-Comintern Pact into anti-British alliance was well beyond Ribbentrop's abilities (most things were with that strange, amateur diplomat who was operating well beyond his level of competence as German foreign minister). It has often been noted that there was a huge contradiction in Hitler's foreign policy in 1939 in that he was planning on a war with Britain whose chosen instruments like the Z Plan fleet would take several years to create vs. reckless short-term actions like attacking Poland that going to cause a war with Britain that year. Unbelievably, Ribbentrop managed somehow to convince Hitler that neither France nor Britain would do anything if Germany attacked Poland in 1939. Ribbentrop put forward various reasons for why he believed Britain and France would do nothing, but even he saw the value of deterrent diplomacy. Signing alliances with nations with strong navies like Japan and Italy were intended to deter Britain from going to war if Germany attacked Poland. Later, the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was intended to serve the same purpose, namely by making the German economy blockade-proof, that it would deter Britain from going to war with Germany. The popular theory that Hitler signed the non-aggression pact in order to take Poland and then turn west confuses intentions with results. In August 1939, when the non-aggression pact in Moscow was signed, it is quite clear that both Hitler and Ribbentrop expected the British to renounce the "guarantee" that been given to Poland only in March of that year. Getting back to early 1939, Ribbentrop tried very hard in 1938-39 to get the Japanese to join this projected anti-British alliance, so I don't understand why this article talks about Hitler "stalling". The problem with creating German-Japanese alliance that the Japanese had no interest in an anti-British alliance in 1938-39, and wanted only an alliance that was anti-Soviet. It is striking that the Japanese military attache in Berlin was instructed to join the talks for an alliance with Germany, but not the naval attache, which rather disappointed the Germans. Hitler didn't "stall" for an alliance with Japan in 1938-39. It was the just the question of whom this proposed alliance was to directed against that was the problem. The Tientsin incident of 1939 does show that the Japanese were willing to provoke the British, but also noteworthy that the Japanese backed off on that. With Japan embroiled in a war with China and a border war with the Soviet Union, saner heads in Tokyo realized that now was not the time to start a war with Britain, no matter how much Ribbentrop might wish otherwise. There is a very long chapter on this in The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany Starting World War II by Gerhard Weinberg, which traces the German-Japanese talks of November 1938-August 1939 in exhaustive detail. --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Germany–Japan relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germany–Japan_relations&oldid=1207404384"