Talk:Empire of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Questions[edit]

Can anyone expand on this chapter of history? How big was the empire? What's the story behind it? How does it link to other chapters of Japan's (and other countries') history? Kokiri 22:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The flag of the sun with rays (Kyokujitsu-ki) was not the Imperial flag. It was used as the ensign of the Imperial Navy (and still in use in the Self Defence Navy). The flag is regarded as a symbol of Imperial Japan, but the national flag was Nisshohki at that time, and has been unchanged so far.
The Flag of the Japan should be RED Sun, not the Sun. It was misleading to the world and science. The flag of the Red Sun (akai hinomaru) is the flag of the State of Japan.--Canendo (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Flag[edit]

Could someone please explain the difference between these?

Flag of Japan.svg
Merchant flag of Japan (1870).svg


There doesn't seem to be a real difference between them other than a very slight color variation, and one is slightly taller than the other. I'm wondering why we have or even need both. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears the red sun is slightly larger as well.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that's becauuse the white field is slightly larger, too. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think we need this "variant". —Nightstallion (?) 21:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The Empire of Japan's flag sun disk is larger, and the shade of red is duller. It's needed to avoid confusion with the Empire of Japan and modern-day Japan. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Flag of Japan is not the color of the Sun. In Oriental thought, the color of the Sun is the White. In Sciece, the color of light is the White, not Red. The Flag of Japan is a symbol of Japan, which is called as Red Sun - Akai Hinomaru (赤日). It should be called as Red Sun defined by Japan. The Sun's color is in White. --Canendo (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What about the flag with the red stripes that is commonly associated with Imperial Japan? Benjamin (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: That's the ensign of the Imperial Japanese Navy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it a common misconception? Benjamin (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Somewhat. Since most of what American's dealt with was the IJN, that's the one most commonly seen. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I've also noticed that's how Polandball depicts the Empire. I, for one, was surprised not to see the flag. Benjamin (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Official English name[edit]

I changed the first sentence from "The Empire of Japan, officially the Empire of Great Japan or simply Great Japan (Dai Nippon), was..." to "The Empire of Japan (大日本帝國, Dai Nippon Teikoku, literally the Empire of Great Japan) was...".[1] because the official name of Imperial Japan was "the Empire of Japan" not "the Empire of Great Japan" although my edit summary erroneously stated "There is no official English name.". See [2], [3], [4],and [5]. Interestingly the name was used in the "Treaty of peace and amity between the United States of America and the Empire of Japan" in 1854 before the Meiji period. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, cheers. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Empire of Great Japan" or "Greater Japanese Empire"[edit]

Just for reference. Google book search:

  • "Empire of Great Japan": 129
  • "Greater Japanese Empire": 279
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


Imperial Japan was founded, de jure, after the 1889 signing of Constitution of the Empire of Japan. Dai or Great or Greater was used in Japanese only. The official name in English was the Empire of Japan by Constitution of the Empire of Japan in 1889. --Canendo (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Empire of Japan. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Empire of Japan. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empire of Japan. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Predecessors and Successors[edit]

Propose to change predecessors and successors to only the ones that precede and succeed Japan, not all occupied/colonized territory. This article is about the country "Empire of Japan", the colonial empire is in this article: Japanese colonial empire. Note also that Korea and Taiwan were separate colonies ruled by their own colonial governor-generals and not simply as another province of Japan, as some seem to believe. So they should also not be part of the predecessors to "mainland Japan" either (and their colonial currencies not listed here either? Unless it was accepted in Japan as well). No other colonial power has their occupied territory listed as predecessors/successors in this way on the article of the "main country" and these areas were not part of "main" Japan, which this article (and more to the point, infobox) is about. --Havsjö (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Korea (after 1910) and Taiwan (after being ceded by China) were annexed, not merely colonised, and were thus integral parts of the Empire of Japan along with South Sakhalin or Karafuto, as explained at Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. This article is about the Empire of Japan, not the simple "Japanese archipelago". And they are not like Manchukuo or Mengjiang in which the Japanese wanted to treat like independent states. Fortunatestars (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
South Sakhalin was a prefecture of "mainland" Japan. Korea and Taiwan were colonies with colonial governments, unlike South Sakhalin. Some image caption on Wikipedia does not change this fact. Whether they should be removed in regards to predecessors/successors as all the occupied territories should or not may be another issue, but that they were parts/regions of Japan and not separately administered colonies is just incorrect. This article is about the country called "Empire of Japan", yes, but all the colonies of the "French Empire" or "German Empire" are not listed as predecessors in their articles. All these countries have separate articles for their respective colonial empires and Japans infobox is very bloated with dubious inclusions. That they were more integral parts of the Empire compared to the puppet-states of the Co-Prosperity Sphere is also irrelevant to if they were colonies or prefectures (aka part of) of Japan. --Havsjö (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how they were governed, it does not change the fact that Korea was annexed (after the treaty in 1910) and Taiwan was ceded by China (after the war of 1895), not merely colonized. The map under "Colonialism" of Japanese people specifically singles out Korea and Taiwan, and internment of Japanese Americans also mentioned "Korean Americans and Taiwanese[1] were also included, since the Japanese Empire included Korea and Taiwan." List of Japanese Nobel laureates mentions Taiwanese and Koreans because they were considered Japanese during the time period. Koreans and Taiwanese were automatically considered Japanese citizens, Vietnamese, Indonesians, Filipinos, etc. were not. Koreans and Taiwanese served in the Kwantung Army, and Vietnamese, Indonesians, Filipino, and etc did not. Koreans and Taiwanese served as high-ranking personnel in the Japanese military, and Vietnamese, Indonesians, Filipinos, and etc did not. There were Korean and Taiwanese prison guards, no Vietnamese, Indonesians, Filipinos, etc. Japanese propaganda claimed they wanted to eventually give the Philippines, Indonesia, and etc independence, not so for Korea and Taiwan which were to be part of, or forever tied to Japan. They forced Koreans and Taiwanese to take up the Japanese names, culture, etc. They planted cherry blossoms all over Korea, but not Vietnam or other places. Yasukuni Shrine specifically singles out Taiwanese and Koreans as serving the Japanese emperor. This article is about the territory of the Empire of Japan and not the "Japanese archipelago". Fortunatestars (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it basically "only" matters how they were governed. Ofc the people of these colonized areas are considered the people of the Japanese Empire. Libyans also got Italian citizenship late in the colonization of that country by Italy and other peoples in other colonies are usually considered subjects of this or that empire. So that Taiwanese/Koreans are grouped as subjects/people of the Empire, serving in the Japanese military, and their lands Japanified is not surprising. However, this still does not change that why they were separately governed, overseas colonies. Part of the Japanese (colonial) Empire. They were not governed as, or part of, "mainland" Japan, which this article is about. Vietnam, Indonesia etc which you mention were also never colonies of Japan, only militarily occupied during WW2, so of course they would not be considered Japanese subjects or have their countries be more and more integrated into Japan like Korea/Taiwan did... Also to note, as discussed below, these regions were also gained after and lost before the beginning/end of the Empire of Japan... --Havsjö (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Italian Libya is a good example, actually. A territory annexed from the Ottoman Empire by Italy. Then colonized and "Italianised", with Italian settlers moving there as well. This was now Italian, yes. But this is still a separately governed colony, headed by colonial Governor-General. That this "belongs to Italy" or that Libyans are considered Italian subjects (later even citizens) and be grouped together with Italians (as opposed to occupied Greeks during WW2...) due to being part of that empire, does not mean Libya is "part of" mainland Italy like a region such as Tuscany or Sicily. (Italy did later make northern Libya a true "part of" Italy, though, but oh well). This is very analogous to Korea/Taiwan and Japan, they were "integral parts" of the Empire vis-a-vis the puppets in the Sphere and were on their way to be thoroughly Japanified (and eventually integrated as actual "parts of" mainland Japan, im pretty sure...), but they were still separately ran colonies during their existence. --Havsjö (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I have been notified of this discussion by a ping on my TP because of my involvement in the Pacific War article. My comments are as follows:

  • Per MOS:INFOBOX, an infobox summarizes key features of the page's subject. An infobox is a summary of key information. It need not be complete or exhaustive, though the body of the article should be complete. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves ... [its] purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. An infobox may provide a note for the sake of accuracy, such as to refer to a particular section of an article for more complete details.
  • IOM, the infobox is large to the point of being excessively so - the "preceded succeeded" part in particular.
  • To precede is positional - usually in time. The empire commenced in 1868. That which immediately preceded it (ie in 1867) was Tokugawa shogunate. It encompassed the Japanese Archipelago. That which was subsequently subsumed into the Empire did not precede it.
  • According to the article, the Empire ceased 1n 1947 with establishment of a new constitution at which time, it was Allied Occupied Japan.
  • Most of the territory subsumed by the empire (mainly during WW2) was essentially returned to the former status upon the end of the war. For the most part, there was no net change. Most of this change preceded the end of the empire in 1947. The empire at the end of the imperial period was Allied Occupied Japan and encompassed the Japanese Archipelago. I would also observe that the two lists do not appear consistent with each other as they presently stand, even to the point of being inaccurate (per inclusion of Japanese Korea).
  • Some minor points are debatable such as the Ryukyu Islands and whether inclusion in the infobox would be key or a matter of being pedantic.
  • My initial position is that I would remove all but Tokugawa shogunate from the "preceded" and Allied Occupied Japan from the "succeeded"
Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Also notified on my TP, and agree with Cinderella157. Packing so many details into the infobox defeats the purpose of the infobox as an at-a-glance presentation of the salient details, per MOS:LEAD. IMO the preceding and succeeding entities identified by Cinderella157 are all that is needed for the infobox. Factotem (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cinderella157:@Factotem: What I changed to before being asked to start this talk discussion was Tokugawa Shogunate, the Ryukyu Kingdom and the Russian Empire (South Sakhalin). Since they are what preceded "mainland" Japan at different points. With Occupied Japan, US occupation of Ryukyu and Sakhalin Oblast being the successors. The other things listed are extraterritorial colonies/occupied area and often, as you mentioned, relinquished before the end of the Empire in 1947. What do you think of these 3 predecessors/successors? --Havsjö (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
When it comes to infoboxes, I check to see if information there receives significant coverage in the main body of the article. A search in the article for "Ryukyu" gives only three results, two of which are in the infobox. This suggests to me that it is not significant enough to warrant the emphasis it currently receives in the infobox. The same principle can be applied to the other entities you mention. Factotem (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The Ryukyu Kingdom was subsumed into the empire subsequent to the start of the imperial period. Both it and South Shakalin were divested from the empire (at least in pragmatic terms) prior to the end of it. As to whether the issue is a matter of what is key or what is pedantic, there is merit in the opinion of Factotem. Regarding South Shakalin, there is a lot of nuance to its history and status and an infobox is never a good place for nuance (IMO). However, it appears to have been part of the empire from the start and for some considerable time prior. At the end, it did not become a new entity that succeeded the empire but was subsumed by the Soviets. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cinderella157:@Factotem: Interesting points, but does this mean that we can all agree on a trim down to simply Tokugawa Shogunate and Occupied Japan now then? --Havsjö (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Kublin, Hyman. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 1st ed. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–84.
In the absence of any case made for others to be included, one that is supported by significant coverage in the main body, yes, I would agree. Factotem (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
For my part, I agree with Factotem. Fortunatestars, would you consent to this? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Cinderella157 and Factotem. Hard to argue with the points Cinderella brought up, which renders the above conversation I'm having moot. Fortunatestars (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

ISO code in infobox[edit]

Hi, the ISO code in the infobox is an anachronism. Codes were assigned well after the existence of the subject. The problem is that I can't see where to remove it. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Unfortunately I am pretty sure this is part of the infobox former country template. Template:Infobox country, you can probably lobby for its removal from the template itself here, which I would support. --Havsjö (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
nvm(?) I removed it by removing the "common name = Japan" parameter, which linked it to modern Japan. --Havsjö (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

About Japanese notation[edit]

Hello. About the Japanese notation of the Empire of Japan. I am Japanese. The character "大日本帝國" is a font called "old font" and is not commonly used at present. At present, it is often written as "大日本帝国".

As I mentioned earlier, I am a Japanese user and do not know much about the English version. Therefore, please let us know if you can replace it with "大日本帝国". --雪津風明石 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Done Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for editing.--雪津風明石 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent infobox edit[edit]

Per this edit by User21343321, substantial changes to the infobox have been made. For the most part, the edit adds many flag icons that were removed following consensus in a recent discussion. Some of the other parts of the edit have also been challenged already. My initial instinct is to revert the edit to that version which precedes it. Any parts achieving consensus might then be added on an individual basis. Comments please. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Manually reverted. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerning Hakko Ichiu as a motto[edit]

Was Hakko Ichiu really used officially since 1926, as the infobox claims? Even though the slogan has been used throughout japanese history, appearing as early as the Nihon Shoki, AFAIK it did not become official until 1940, as stated in this source, for example (https://web.archive.org/web/20131111112821/http://jonckheeref.com/html/jonckheere_hakko_ichiu_eng.html) KnightofFaerië (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


The article on Hakko Ichiu calls it a political slogan. A political slogan is not a motto in the context of what should be placed in the infobox. Its status as an official "motto" is not verified and it shoulf be struck from the infobox? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)