Talk:Great power

Japan and Germany

"Japan and Germany are sometimes classified as middle powers. However, they are also referred to as great powers and grouped with the other great powers. Despite their lack of permanent seats and veto power on the UN Security Council, nuclear weapons, or strategic military reach, Japan and Germany do have great economic strength, being the third and fourth largest economies respectively."

The text states exactly what is in the sources - however, User Lachrie repeatedly changes the content to his own POV version -- why -- because you are British?

see also: National Power Index --77.181.226.218 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)--IIIraute (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The military strength of a country is based on its military potential which is based on the economic power it has. Having the world's fourth largest economy (twice that of Russia) and by far the most powerful in Europe, and being the the world's third largest arms exporter, Germany could switch from cars to tanks and merchant ships to war ships and out-produce the UK and France in weeks. Germany is among the powers which possess the ability to create nuclear weapons within days, but has agreed not to do so. Germany is in possession of about 60 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Germany under a NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement. Germany is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world and is the world market leader in producing components that can be used for creating deadly agents, chemical weapons, and other WMD (BASF, for example). The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is seen as the 4th most powerful head of state and most powerful women in the world, leading the table six times in the last seven years.--IIIraute (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I just added a further source to the text: James Wirtz & Michel Fortmann, Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, 2004, Stanford University Press.--IIIraute (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Merkel herself defines Germany as a "Middle Power". Your arguments trying to connect a national economy with military potential, especially in the nuclear age, are implausible and ill-informed and poorly supported. They aren't relevant as they appear to be your own ideas and based on original research. Your attempt (through sockpuppets and anon ips) to promote Germany and Japan unambiguously as Great Powers doesn't reflect the ambiguity of their actual diplomatic and military standing. It amounts to pov-pushing. The article already reflects a range of views and is more balanced as it is. Lachrie (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You were the editor that changed a stable article a short while ago! I would also like to kindly ask you NOT to delte sources - especially such as: James Wirtz & Michel Fortmann, Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, 2004, Stanford University. Please also explain what exactly it is, that is wrong about the text above. What Merkel says, does not matter. The facts are very clear. The military argument was only one aspect, as Germanys huge influence on the whole world can hardly be denied - far more influential than any other European nation. Also, please note: you should be very careful with your sockpuppetry accusations - as otherwise this might have consequences for you. Otherwise, why don't you open a SPI?? --IIIraute (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Merkel's opinion carries more weight than your own unsupported assertion, which is very weak. Your dismissive attitude of any evidence contrary to your pet thesis is in itself an indication of your unbalanced approach to the evidence, which is mixed. There's no problem with you adding sources if you can explain their relevance to the claim you're inserting, but you haven't done that. I'd invite you to that here, with a specific quotation and page number we can verify to test the validity and justify the change, before you insert it again. The article would be stable but for your repeated efforts to destabilize it.

I think it's obvious enough that you're a sockpuppet. You've been trying to introduce identical textual changes relating to Germany under a variety of guises for months, and when called on it by various editors, your tactic is to try to sow confusion by mirroring the accusations against you. But the article edit history is enough to disprove you. If you persist it's probably inevitable that we'll be opening an SPI.

As it happens, I think the wording about Germany could be improved, but it should be discussed here first, rather than edit-warred in the article. Since there's never been any consensus among other editors for your desired change, and it still seems objectionable now, we have sufficient cause to revert it. Lachrie (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Other than the last 24 hours, I have not been editing on this article for months - before that, only as IIIraute and not any other IP or username - your accusations are ridiculous and just serve to distract from my argument and show that there are several other users that object your POV changes. And since I do persist, please open a SPI - you are more than welcome - do it now, or what is it you are waiting for?? --IIIraute (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI is a time-consuming process and shouldn't be necessary so long as there's no more disruptive editing. It's the article content not the tedious games and posturing that's important. I've just been restoring the article back to the long-standing consensus wording, not changing it. The article acknowledges a range of views and was therefore less POV before you changed it to try to exclude the prevailing view of Germany as a middle power, which better reflects the IR literature, e.g.: "It is considered as a middle power in Europe by Chancellor Angela Merkel, former President Johannes Rau and leading media of the country." I'll add some more references from the IR literature to that effect. Lachrie (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

1. A Great Power in Denial: Bringing Germany Back to Reality [1]
2. No more Hypocrisy: Germany is a Great Power [2]
3. World’s fifteen most powerful countries in 2012 [3]
4. The Anxious Great Power: Germany's long road to world politics [4]
5. Chancellor Schroeder signals shift, calls Germany a `great power' [5]
6. Europe's Superpower: Germany Is The New Indispensable (And Resented) Nation [6]
7. Germany looks confident of becoming EU's economic superpower [7]
8. The Coming European Superpower [8]
9. Germany – the new mini-superpower [9]
10. Germany: The reluctant superpower [10]
11. Germany's Rising Economic and Political Power [11]
12. Great Powers [12]

...and regarding your latest edit - Germany's "low diplomatic profile":

1. German Foreign Policy: Global Power [13]
2. EU Strengthens Germany’s Global Power [14]
3. German Foreign Policy: Global Power [15]
4. Obama's political fate could rest with Europe's economy [16]
5. Obama’s Fate May Depend on Europe [17]
6. The German people will decide Europe's fate [18]
7. Fate of euro zone lies with Germany [19]
8. Germany's Power 'Is Causing Fear' in Europe [20]
9. Germany Becoming Global Power [21]

...also: Japan and Germany are both G4 nations, and are regularly elected to two-year terms on the Security Council as non-permanent members. --IIIraute (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of these links are cherry-picked to sensationalist media with varying political agendas, not to serious IR literature. The article already acknowledges the range of views and Germany's ambiguous position, and so all this is already taken into account. Lachrie (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't try to force through these recent changes you and your sockpuppets made on the basis that they form some kind of established "consensus". The discussions on the page have exposed them as unsupported and insupportable: they weaken the article and will have to be reverted. Lachrie (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

you added the "low diplomatic profile" part on October, 15th → [22] without consensus. Please check previous versions first! --IIIraute (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's directly supported by a reliable source from IR literature, so you have no reasonable excuse to remove it. See WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Lachrie (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

yes, I do. apart from the 3RR rule you are breaking, there was agreement to not change the text any further without consensus. But you did change it on October, 15th. → [23] I did add IR literature that was removed by you for the very same reason. I really think we should integrate this IR literature; so why don't you try to be of any help? →→

1. A Great Power in Denial: Bringing Germany Back to Reality [24]
2. No more Hypocrisy: Germany is a Great Power [25] --IIIraute (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In effect, what you're trying to claim for yourself is a personal veto over any changes, even perfectly legitimate changes with evidential support from reliable literature, which you've reverted again without valid excuse, in a clear abuse of procedure: instead of offering a reason, you bring up edits of yours that were previously reverted. These are a separate matter and not comparable: for the record, they were edits pushing an exclusive point of view that was contradicted by the evidence already cited in the article, and were therefore reverted with reasonable cause. Lachrie (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

your latest edit also pushes an exclusive point of view - I have given you IR literature that claims different - but you choose to ignore it.... and instead of taking this IR literature into account you bully other editors and accuse them of sockpuppetry. --IIIraute (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's also clearly false: the edit doesn't push an exclusive point of view: it helps to balance alternative opinions also presented and retained in the article. The emphasis in the article should be that Germany's standing is ambiguous (not that it is one thing or the other), and its low diplomatic profile obviously should be mentioned as being one reason why this is so. Your sources weren't of comparable quality or value: they were examples of vague usage from sensationalist journalism, not academic assessments from serious IR literature. I do believe you are using sockpuppets to try to manipulate the page;

...yes brainiac, I am using sockpuppets and IP's from all over the world to try to manipulate the page... so why don't you open a SPI instead of accusing me? Otherwise, why don't you just f**k yourself! --IIIraute (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

however, that's been an issue with you and this article for months, if not years, and at this stage it may be more constructive and less time-consuming simply to point out the errors in your reasoning for the benefit of other users. Lachrie (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"...and its low diplomatic profile obviously should be mentioned as being one reason why this is so." is your very own analysis and conclusion. That's why it should be brought to the talk page first. Could you please explain why the following two papers are not to be regarded as "serious IR literature"?

1. A Great Power in Denial: Bringing Germany Back to Reality [26]
2. No more Hypocrisy: Germany is a Great Power [27]

But at the end it doesn't seem to matter because it looks like you own this article. Your defamatory statements and patronising personal attacks and bullying of other editors succeeds - I really don't give a f**k! --IIIraute (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

These sources are examples of advocacy journalism taking an openly dissenting view, and therefore are not grounds for deleting from the article more conventional established interpretations based on authoritative sources. The pattern of editing clearly suggests manipulation; users have a responsibility to point this out; nonetheless the priority here is and should be the article content. Enough time is already wasted on the talk page repeatedly pointing out the obvious deficiencies in recent edits, the content of which is more important than establishing the identity of whoever happens to be behind such clumsy and poorly-supported POV-pushing. Lachrie (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Germany

Since when is Germany seen "as having a low profile" in diplomatic terms? Germany has become the most influential European state during the last decade and especially through its influence in the Eurozone and the EU. Welcome to Berlin, Europe’s new capital, Germany and Merkel hold Europe's fate in their hands

And why are Japan and Germany are mingled anyway ? Whereas Japan is certainly an island with few hard power or influence in the region, Germany occupies a very strong position in Europe. When China, Russia or the US wants a partner a Europe, these countries contact Germany first, because of the influencial German voice in the Eurpean Union. The article is very outdated in terms of the current status of Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.204.223 (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Germany may be strong within Europe (or rather, the EU, even just the Eurozone) but it's not as strong as Britain or France on the wider global stage, either in diplomatic or military terms. As for your assertion that "When China, Russia or the US wants a partner a Europe, these countries contact Germany first" - erm, what? Really? Do you really believe that? Look, in truth, Germany, France and the UK are all more-or-less equal powers, each a little stronger than the other in particular areas (economic, military, diplomacy, cultural, etc). But ultimately the test of status of great power is a global one and Germany does lag behind (though not greatly) both Britain and France. Within the "European institutions" it is the strongest of the three, but on the global stage it's alongside Britain and France (and of course Russia, which is after all a European country too!) as great powers, but the UK, France and Russia have had longer/more opportunity to make an impact. (Germany will slowly achieve this globally, but it does take time.) I agree that Germany and Japan shouldn't be always seen together in this debate as they are quite different countries, though their exclusion from the UN Security Council (permanent 5) has the same root: the Second World War. (Which really shouldn't affect their credentials for being a great power/Security Council permanent member today, but that is ultimately why they were left out in the first place, and as there's been very slow - if any - progress on Security Council reform, that's how things remain.) David (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Germany is a military featherweight that exercises soft power diplomacy and appears only to be able manifest itself economically through the EU dynamic. On a global scale (with the exception of the G9 and G20) the Germans are largely irrelevant... who remembers Libya? A conflict with direct European interests and intervention yet the Germans were nowhere to be seen or heard. France and Britain are Europes only traditional Great Powers. Wrong neither Russia, China or the US contact Germany first when seeking a "partner a Europe". By "partner a Europe" I assume you mean negotiating trade with the European Union? China maintains trade relations with the European Union as well as individual European states.Obscure Reality ^{Ping me} 18:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

ObscureReality, you have obviously no idea what's going on in the world - but why should you. I don't blame you for it.

...by the way- did you know that the Germans do own half of your country -- not only do they own Rolls-Royce Motors, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, parts of Rolls-Royce plc, Bentley, MINI, The BOC Group, Boots UK and Exel, etc. - but the UK also owes €380 billion to the Germans →[28] --IIIraute (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

US Foreign Policy Magazine/ 2011: Deutschland, unter alles… Quote:" But what is clear is that after the United States and China, with Japan sidelined with its own multiple crises, Germany has become the world's third most important power and, in terms of many of the day's most pressing question, it may even play a role more central than that exalted position implies. "

European Council on Foreign Relations/ 2012: CHINA AND GERMANY: WHY THE EMERGING SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP MATTERS FOR EUROPE Quote: "Europe’s future relationship with China – one of its most important “strategic partners” – will be determined to a large extent by Germany’s rapidly evolving bilateral relationship with China."

New York Times/ 2012 Berlin Starts to Test Its Ties With Russia Quote: "Germany is Russia’s most important trading partner and a loyal ally in the European Union."

Please rewrite the part on Germany as this appears to be highly outdated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.79.211 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is seen as the 4th most powerful head of state and most powerful women in the world, leading the table six times in the last seven years. → → National Power Index

Germany has the world's fourth largest economy and is the third largest exporter and third largest importer of goods as well as the world's third largest arms exporter, a G8 member and has a network of 229 diplomatic missions abroad and maintains relations with more than 190 countries. Germany has the largest and most powerful national economy in Europe and is the largest contributor to the budget of the European Union (providing 20%) and the third largest contributor to the United Nations (providing 9%). 1/10 of the world's 500 largest stock-market-listed companies companies are headquartered in Germany.

...but of course, on a global scale, the "Germans are largely irrelevant..." indeed! --IIIraute (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

More off-topic WP:FORUM discussions. Stick to what the sources says, and the discussion of those, please.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So you are telling me that due to a handful of British companies being bought out by German companies that Germany now owns half of the UK? Wow, you're right I really don't know what's going on in the world... Geeze! OMG, Britain owes Germany over 300 billion Euros?! I positively cannot handle such revelations! Doesn't Germany likewise also owe 100s of billions to other countries including Britain? Seriously, what point are you trying to make? Manipulating facts and jumping to sensational conclusions isn't going to change reality, yes Germany is an economic powerhouse (as shown by those citations kindly provided), but militarily, diplomatically and culturally Germany is very much redundant on a global scale. Britain and France are overall far more powerful and influential than Germany - exercising both hard and soft power diplomacy, being global military powers and culturally highly successful and influential around the globe.Obscure Reality Ping me 00:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Foreign debt to GDP: UK → 436% -- Germany → 176%. And it's almost 400 billion ($500 billion) the UK owes Germany, not 300. ...and there is nothing manipulating about the following facts that you simply ignored: 4th most powerful head of state, most powerful women in the world, leading the table six times in the last seven years, National Power Index, the world's fourth largest economy, third largest exporter, third largest importer, the world's third largest arms exporter, G8 member, 229 diplomatic missions abroad, largest and most powerful national economy in Europe, largest contributor to the budget of the European Union, third largest contributor to the United Nations, 1/10 of the world's 500 largest stock-market-listed companies companies. Germany holds the second largest Gold reserve in the world - more than ten times the tonnes the UK owns. Quality of Living Survey - Worldwide Rankings, 2011 →→ German cities ranked: 4th, 5th, 7th... (7 cities in the top 30) -- UK: only one city in the top 50, ranked 38th.[29] UNESCO World Heritage Sites: UK → 28 -- Germany → 38 -- Germany has almost twice as many Nobel Prize laureates than France --- All-time Olympic Games medal table: UK → 802 -- Germany → 1662 (more than twice as many). The German team is the second most successful Olympic team in the world (although they weren't allowed to take part in several Olympic Games). The German national football team is the most successful team in Europe and only second to Brazil in the world: FIFA World Cup Winner (3): 1954, 1974, 1990 - Runner-up (4): 1966, 1982, 1986, 2002 - Third place (4): 1934, 1970, 2006, 2010 - Fourth place (1): 1958 --- UEFA European Championship Winner (3): 1972, 1980, 1996 - Runner-up (3): 1976, 1992, 2008 - Semi-finals (2): 1988, 2012, and Michael Schumacher has won more Formula One World Drivers' Championships and more Formula One races than any other driver. Germany is the third most successful Hockey nation in the world. Steffi Graf won 22 Grand Slam singles titles, most Grand Slam wins by a tennis player (male or female) since introduction of the Open Era. Germany has won more titles at the FIFA Women's World Cup than any other nation, making Germany the only nation to win both the men's and women's World Cup and European titles. Germanys men's national ice hockey team is ranked among the best in the world. Dirk Nowitzki became the first player trained totally outside the U.S. to be named league MVP, and in 2011 led the Mavericks to their first NBA title. Germany won the handball world cup in 1938, 1978 and in 2007. The DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters) is considered as one of the two best touring car series in the world. Porsche has won the 24 Hours of Le Mans 16 times, Audi 9 times. The Germans have the highest international tourism expenditure in the world. Germany's television market is the largest in Europe, German restaurants have become the world's second-most Michelin star decorated after France, and the Bundesliga attracts the second highest average attendance of any professional sports league in the world. Germany is the largest music market in Europe, and third largest in the world. Germany has been named the world's second most valued nation in 2010.[30] German-speaking book publishers produce some 750 million books every year coming third in quantity of books published, after the worlds English-speaking book market and the People's Republic of China. Btw, isn't English a Germanic language? German Americans comprise about 50 million people, or 17% of the U.S. population, the country's largest self-reported ancestral group. ...so you are not seriously trying to tell me that the UK or France are culturally more influential around the globe - you obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and must be truly uneducated: think about the current, and other Popes, Martin Luther, Ludwig van Beethoven, Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Johannes Brahms, Richard Wagner, Richard Strauss, Robert Schumann, Felix Mendelssohn, Franz Schubert, Anton Bruckner, Gustav Mahler, Gottfried Leibniz, Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Adolf Hitler, Otto von Bismarck, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Theodor Adorno, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing and Theodor Fontane, the Brothers Grimm , Johann Gottfried Herder, Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse, Heinrich Böll, Günter Grass, Hans Holbein, Albrecht Dürer, Walter Gropius, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg and Max Born, Hermann von Helmholtz, Joseph von Fraunhofer, Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit, Wilhelm Röntgen, Otto Hahn, Ferdinand Cohn, Robert Koch, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Albertus Magnus, David Hilbert, Bernhard Riemann, Gottfried Leibniz, Johannes Gutenberg, Hans Geiger, Konrad Zuse, Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin, Otto Lilienthal, Gottlieb Daimler, Rudolf Diesel, Hildegard von Bingen, Robert Bosch, Hugo Junkers, Karl Benz, Wernher von Braun, Carl von Clausewitz, Heinrich Rudolf Hertz, Levi Strauss, Ludwig II, Bertolt Brecht, Adam Riese, Ferdinand Porsche, Werner von Siemens, Alfred Krupp, Nikolaus August Otto, Caspar David Friedrich, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, Philipp Otto Runge, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Karl Schmidt-Rottluff, Max Pechstein, Wassily Kandinsky, Franz Marc, August Macke, Alexej von Jawlensky, Emil Nolde, George Grosz, Otto Dix and Max Beckmann, Paul Klee, Lyonel Feininger, Max Ernst, Georg Baselitz, Anselm Kiefer, Martin Kippenberger, Sigmar Polke, Gerhard Richter (the highest paid living artist), Karl Lagerfeld (the "Tsar" of fashion), Adidas - the second most valuable brand among sports & fashion businesses and one of the most valuable brands in the world (Puma, also German, coming third in sports)....et, etc... If you were educated - you'd know every single person listed above... A global opinion poll for the BBC revealed that Germany is recognised for having the most positive influence in the world in 2011.[31] ...ahh, and not to forget your pretty Queen and basically the whole royal family - all Germans: House of Hanover → George I, George II, George III, George VI, William IV - and all their wives: German --- Queen Victoria & husband Albert, and all the following House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Kings - and the current Queen: German. Her husband: Mountbatten, also German ...so why don't you think about it next time you enjoy a Lager/Pilsener. Cheers mate! --IIIraute (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Germany has achieved great things! Well done, but so have all great nations. However none of the above is really relevant to this article. I disagree, knowing every single person you listed above is not the measure of one's education. Spamming cherry picked citations to support your agenda isn't going to get you anywhere. Quite simply Germany isn't a global power... where was Germany during the intervention in Libya? Germanys voice wasn't even heard during the Libyan campaign and Europe knew Germany was militarily incapable of intervention anyway. When it comes down to it, when hard diplomacy and military action is needed Germany is a nobody and is powerless on the world stage... Germany like Japan only holds global influence through economics thus the term "Economic Great Power". Obscure Reality Ping me 14:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC) My comment above was about your comment that "culturally Germany is very much redundant on a global scale." - I was not arguing for Germanys Great Power status. Also, please note that there is nothing cherry picked - all of them are facts you can read about in the relevant WP articles. Germany chose not to be part of the military action during the Libyan campaign (an agressive act of war) - just how they chose not to take part in your phoney Iraq war. What you obviously don't get is that "hard diplomacy" is not only achieved through military strength but nowadays even more through economic power (Germany has a huge diplomatic influence on Russia, China and Iran, for example) and Germany or Japan could be military ahead of France or the UK within months - if they wanted to. --IIIraute (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Germany wasn't capable of Libya even if it had wanted to participate in the campaign - and as regards to your Iranian example, I clearly remember it being the British, French and Americans that finally deployed warships to the Gulf to intimidate Iran not Germany... yes Germany was present during the talks with Iran when the west was imposing sanctions, but so was Britain and France. In fact, in comparison to Germany it was the British who played a leading role in those sanctions thanks as a result of there being British oil and offshore companies located in the Gulf under threat and our strong diplomatic and military relationships with Saudi-Arabia and Oman... the Germans played a sideline role. Wrong! Bold claims that Germany (or Japan) could militarily be ahead of Britain or France in a matter of MONTHS is ludicrous. Heheheh. It would take decades at least. Obscure Reality Ping me 23:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC) ...yes, as we could all see in 1939. --IIIraute (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC) This is not 1939 we cannot possibly compare the type of weaponry we build today with that of 1939... also its worth mentioning Germany wasn't even capable of beating the British during ww2... a large land based fighting force on Continental Europe posed no threat to Britain guarded by the larger and superior Royal Navy... Whales vs Elephants.Obscure Reality Ping me 00:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC) ...no, no threat.... of course. Well, Churchill did evaluate the situation very different in 1941, literally begging the USA for military intervention... because "time is running out fast.".. but no, no threat at all. --IIIraute (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC) You are taking what I write out of context, I speak from the advantage of our looking back at history - at no time was Britain under any realistic threat of a successful invasion from Germany. Now certainly at the time during the Battle of Britain, Churchill or any responsible and level headed politician would desire an ally... Churchill used political rhetoric to build a rapport with the Americans, at no time did he "literally begg" the Americans. Churchill was too proud and openly boasted of Britain being alone and steadfast in the war against both Germany, Italy and later Japan. Wasn't it Britain who single handedly defeated the Germans and Italians in North Africa, while winning the Battle of Britain, blockading the German surface fleet and crippling the entire Italian Navy to the point it became an utterly ineffective fighting force? The Americans had very little to do with the war in Europe until the British-led allied invasion of Italy in 1943. The Americans then took the lead shortly before Normandy in 1944.194.46.246.189 (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC) The Germans never intended to invade Britain - they would have preferred to have them as an ally. Germany also was at no time under any threat from Britain - and Britain defeating the Germans in North Africa? - you mean while the Germans were busy executing the largest invasion in the history of warfare along a 3500 km front - with its battles constituting the largest military confrontation in history?? Well done Britain - you must be really proud! While Germany quickly gained control of most of continental Europe, it was the Italians that created that mess in Nort Africa - there was certainly no interest from the German side - same goes for Greece. --IIIraute (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Right, thanks for that. As well as being utterly insulting to the British, you've just demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about WW2 history. No interest from Germany in North Africa? Okay. I'm not going to bother writing a single thing more on this matter or in replying to you as you just don't have a clue. I only ask anyone who is remotely interested in the truth to read up for themselves on the North African Campaign. David (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC) ...yes, and the article does reflect my previous statement. It was the Italians that created that mess - and the Germans had to intervene. They certainly would have preferred not to. Btw, I guess I can consider myself very lucky indeed, that I was given the opportunity to teach on this subject in several lectureships appointments - also at one of your "finest" British universities -- jammy shot, for someone "knowing absolutely nothing about WW2 history". Every dog has his day!--IIIraute (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Interesting, according to IMF forecasts the British economy will grow almost twice as fast as Germanys up to at least 2017 and while the British population expands from 63 to 65 million over the next few years the German population will continue to shrink. Im not sure, but I think a shrinking population is a bad thing right? Especialy when combined with a rapidly ageing population like Germanys.. IMF report for selected countries Germany and the United Kingdom Obscure Reality Ping me 00:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC) ...glass ball, glass ball →→ National Power Index forecasts. --IIIraute (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Please stop this irrelevant chitchat and stick to the sources I provided. Germany is a major global player and the most influential force of the worlds largest economy, the EU. Please update the article as soon as possible and remove sentences like "low profile" attributed to Germany. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.86.217 (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Indeed. The above discussion has long since moved far into WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR discussions. User:ObscureReality and User:IIIraute please stay on subject, which is the improvement of this article through discussion of relevant reliable secondary sources. Your personal opinions and prejudices are quite irrelevant here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure what IIIraute is trying to prove. I mean what has "Btw, isn't English a Germanic language?" got to do with Great Power? And football teams? Erm. LOL. David (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC) I did not want to prove anything - and did only reply to the comment that "culturally Germany is very much redundant on a global scale." He laughs best that laughs last. --IIIraute (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Going back to this idea that the article somehow needs to be rewritten to reflect Germany's uber powerfulness (as the IP editor wants us to) - I honestly don't see where the article is incorrect or unfair or unclear with regard to Germany, past or present. The article is clear (to me) that Germany is widely regarded as a great power (though it is also regarded as only a middle power by others), though doesn't have that definitive (for the post-WWII era) permanent Security Council seat, being instead seen as a great power because of economic reasons. David (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC) I adjusted the wording in the respective part. It would be much appreciated if somebody could include the credible sources I provided while removing the outdated ones. I cancelled also the wording "lack of nuclear weapons" because NATO nuclear missiles are installed in Germany. I still would prefer to split the Japan and Germany issue. It should be cited that Germany has become an "indispensable nation" in the EU and also has become the central player in the Eurozone, the second most important monetary union on the globe. Thank you for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.87.29 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Germany is not the third- but the second largest exporter, and Angela Merkel, is seen as the 2nd most powerful person and most powerful women in the world, leading the table six times in the last seven years.--77.181.219.83 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism to List of Great powers by date

I've just reverted recent edits (by a single editor) to Template:List of Great powers by date - can editors who are keeping an eye out on the Great power article also keep an eye out on this template too? David (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And once again some Indian nationalist is editing the template to include India. Please can we deal with this? David (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes

An anon. IP editor has suggested changes - please can others join in the discussion?

Template talk:List of Great powers by date

This is quite important, so input is strongly invited. David (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Japan and Germany

An anon IP 24.106.230.219 has been arbitrarily removing Germany and Japan from this article and from the template List of Great powers by date‎ claiming some consensus was reached some years ago! I am starting this section to see if any one supports(or opposes) this actions. Strike Σagle 07:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a consensus was reached to NOT INCLUDE regarding Japan and Germany. See discussions for Great Power article for this. In any event, I'm not denying that both countries are economic great powers, but since their military dimension is lacking (i.e. no nuclear weapons), they are not considered 'Great Powers' in the capitalized sense. This is standard PolySci text book stuff, really. Moreover, both Japan and Germany were the defeated powers of WWII, after which a new international power configuration was reached amongst the VICTORS (i.e. permanent UN security council seats, WITH nuclear weapons). Sure, both Japan and Germany have since risen from the ashes and grown to be great economic powers, but the status quo should not be tossed out so willy nilly. Moreover, both counties are still under the security/nuclear umbrella of the United States, this coupled with their burdens of the past, mean that their ability to "exert influence on a global scale", which is the CONSENSUS definition of 'GREAT POWERS' as stated at the top of the 'Great Powers' article, remains severely limited. So seriously now, this horse has been beaten a gazillion times, and it is truly and well dead. Just let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.230.219 (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but your points only seem to be complete Original Research.......if consensus was reached to remove it as you say, then why do they still stay in the article? Please clarify..also please provide some academic sources proving Germany and Japan are not great power. Thanks, Strike Σagle 07:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I said the consensus was reached on not to ADD. And what original research? Please read the section under 'Aftermath of the Cold War', with all of tis attendant sources and then reread my above comment. As to why did those get left up there? I don't know. Maybe someone added them, and the rest of us didn't notice? Having been left there hardly seems a good reason for them to be left there, as they were, is it? I mean logically, your argument doesn't make sense, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.230.219 (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please point to the archives(I'm lazy) where there was a clear consensus to remove them. Strike Σagle 08:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Germany and Japan stay. They are Great powers and their addition to this article is well sourced with academic citations.Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course they stay.--77.181.219.83 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Germany and Japan are great powers - different than the other five (in that they are not P5 nor have nuclear weapons) but are great powers nonetheless. David (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great power/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 11:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Review

1. "Great powers characteristically possess military and economic strength and diplomatic and soft power influence which may cause small powers to consider the opinions of great powers before taking actions of their own" Run on sentence, doesn't flow very well, please rewrite? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
2. "However, this approach has the disadvantage of subjectivity. As a result, there have been attempts to derive some common criteria and to treat these as essential elements of great power status." Ref? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
3. "As noted above, for many, power capabilities were the sole criterion. However, even under the more expansive tests, power retains a vital place." Remove this sentance please. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
4. "written in 1833" rm, ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
5. "Other important criteria throughout history are that great powers should have enough influence to be included in discussions of political and diplomatic questions of the day, and have influence on the final outcome and resolution. Historically, when major political questions were addressed, several great powers met to discuss them. Before the era of groups like the United Nations, participants of such meetings were not officially named, but were decided based on their great power status. These were conferences which settled important questions based on major historical events. This might mean deciding the political resolution of various geographical and nationalist claims following a major conflict, or other contexts.

There are several historical conferences and treaties which display this pattern, such as the Congress of Vienna, the Congress of Berlin, the discussions of the Treaty of Versailles which redrew the map of Europe, and the Treaty of Westphalia." Ref please ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

1. "Other powers, such as Spain, Portugal, and Sweden were consulted on certain specific issues, but they were not full participants. Hanover, Bavaria, and Württemberg were also consulted on issues relating to Germany." Ref please ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
2. "only France and the United Kingdom have maintained that status continuously to the present day" Ref please? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
3. "The victorious great powers also gained an acknowledgement of their status through permanent seats at the League of Nations Council, where they acted as a type of executive body directing the Assembly of the League. However, the Council began with only four permanent members—Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan—because the United States, meant to be the fifth permanent member, left because the US Senate voted on 19 March 1920 against the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, thus preventing American participation in the League." Ref please ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
4. "The end of World War II saw the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet Union emerge as the primary victors. The importance of the Republic of China and France was acknowledged by their inclusion, along with the other three, in the group of countries allotted permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
5. "and according to him, there were three superpowers: the British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union. But by the mid-1950s the British Empire lost its superpower status, leaving the United States and the Soviet Union as the world's superpowers.[nb 2] The term middle power has emerged for those nations which exercise a degree of global influence, but are insufficient to be decisive on international affairs. Regional powers are those whose influence is generally confined to their region of the world." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
6. "China, with the world's largest population, has slowly risen to great power status, with large growth in economic and military power in the post-war period. After 1949, the Republic of China began to lose its recognition as the sole legitimate government of China by the other great powers, in favour of the People's Republic of China. Subsequently, in 1971, it lost its permanent seat at the UN Security Council to the People's Republic of China." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
7. "These five nations are the only states to have permanent seats with veto power on the UN Security Council. They are also the recognized "Nuclear Weapons States" under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and have the five largest military expenditures in the world." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
8. "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, its UN Security Council permanent seat was transferred to the Russian Federation in 1991, as its successor state. The newly formed Russian Federation emerged on the level of a great power, leaving the United States as the only remaining global superpower[nb 3] (although some support a multipolar world view)." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
9. "Permanent membership of the UN Security Council is widely regarded as being a central tenet of great power status in the modern world; Brazil, Germany, India and Japan form the G4 nations which support one another (and have varying degrees of support from the existing permanent members) in becoming permanent members. There are however few signs that reform of the Security Council will happen in the near future." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

New reviewer needed

Retrolord has been indefinitely blocked, so this article will need a new reviewer. I'm closing this review so that this nomination will return to its spot in the queue. Though this will show up in the article history as a "fail", the close is purely on procedural grounds and not a judgement on the state of the article. Thanks for your work on it! Sorry for this delay in your review, but at least RL's comments above will give you points to consider in the meantime. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

EU,Japan and Germany

EU can be considered a true great power as well its members France and UK. Germany any and Japans lacks in military. Canada and Italy with a similar size economy of UK and France could claim to be a graet power. They've Nato sharing program like Germany. The idea of great power is now dated. The real greatest powers in the world are today USA,EU and may be Popular Republic of China. The UN veto power is today meaningless.(see many wars or whatelse).151.40.7.192 (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)