Talk:Imperial Japanese Army
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Imperial Japanese Army article.|
|WikiProject Japan||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Link to weapons?
- 2 POWs
- 3 redirect
- 4 So which is it?
- 5 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units)
- 6 See Also reordering
- 7 Disambiguation
- 8 revolutionary immigrants
- 9 Images
- 10 Psichological War
- 11 Assessment
- 12 Non-Japanese
- 13 Final Paragraph Under fanaticism and war crimes is unclear in several places
- 14 Atrocities of Imperial Japanese Army
- 15 More informational and less sensational, please
Link to weapons?
Is there any way we can get links to the kinds of weapons, small arms, vehicles, etc. The same way we do for articles on modern armies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC) they had special sword guns that were used in ww11 and they had a bomber plane called b-20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't 'Japanese Army' redirect to the page about the current army of Japan? And shouldn't this page also have a link somewhere to the page of the modern Japanese Army?
- I've redirected "Japanese Army" to Military of Japan which includes links to both this article and to Japan Self-Defense Forces, Japan's modern equivalent to a military force. I'll add a brief description and link to "Japan Self-Defense Forces" in this article as well.--Cab88 01:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
So which is it?
The article states that "The Imperial Japanese Army was initially developed with the assistance of American (post Civil War), then French and finally by German advisors (post Franco-Prussian War)...". The first time I heard of American advisors was in the Last Samurai movie and I was under the impression that was a problem with the authenticity of the movie (hey its Holywood and a marketing problem). The article "Modernization of Japanese Military 1868-1931" states "The modernization of the Japanese army and navy during the Meiji period (1868-1912) and until the Mukden Incident (1931) was carried out by the newly founded national government, a military leadership that was only responsible to the Emperor and the help of French, English and Prussian military advisors." Any sources regarding the American involvement. At the moment the two articles are not consistant and should be fixed either way. Does anyone know for sure of the initial American involvement. I understood the main reason for switching to the German model from the French was the availability of translators.Peter Rehse 06:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I personnally do not know of sources on early American military involvement beyond the exceptional early sale of a (French-made) warship such as the Kotetsu in 1869. PHG 08:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I do not have any sources on American involvement in the formation of the Japanese military, but I will state that taking into consideration the very common Japanese pattern in the 1866-1910 period of hiring foreigners -- englishmen, americans, dutch, germans, et cetera -- to pump them for their knowledge and expertise when setting up modern installments, it's not at all unlikely that there were some American military experts involved in one capacity or another.
Forgive the spam, but I'm trying to round up wikipedians with an interest in international military history to help work out some conventions for the names of military units. If you are interested in that sort of thing, please visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) and join the discussions on the talk page. — B.Bryant 17:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See Also reordering
The See Also section at the moment includes 22 links. I think that they should be reviewed, the less useful links should be removed and the remaining should be logically grouped. GhePeU 22:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Now the links are 29. Way too much, if nobody steps in I'm going to clean up the section. GhePeU 10:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Failed to summary my edit, but included disambiguation link to Juggling (since International Jugglers' Association is not yet created). As a juggler, IJA refers to the association. Google has top hit IJA-> juggle.org --CzarB 04:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe wikipedia users would find casualty pictures acceptable on a page about the military of the United States.
I am puzzled as to why 2 brutal images of fallen Japanese soldiers is appropriate here.
Wkimmerle 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see that they have been removed.--126.96.36.199 18:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
and replaced. I think this is a valid point, is an image of a man with his face shot off really suitable for a encyclopedia? Would an image of a dead american be tolerated on the US Army page? Would this image be suitable for viewing by a child? I think the answer to all three of these questions is no. Chris1012 —Preceding comment was added at 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed pictures of dead as unneeded for this article.--188.8.131.52 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
How come only panflets dropped by the allies contained the truth and the planflets distributed among the Japanese Army false? I really think the author is taking sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I've re-assessed this article as a Start class article for the Military History project as it does not meet the project's criteria for referencing. (Please note the project does not use C class as a rating, so if it is not a B then it must be a C). For a Mil hist B class rating, as a general rule an article requires at least one in-line citation per paragraph, or more if multiple sources are used for a paragraph or multiple contestable points are made (e.g. values, dates, analysis, etc.). I've added a few citations in where I have a source, but only have one book, so if others want to try work on the article adding citations, hopefully it can be built up to a B class. If you wish for a re-assessment, this can be requested at WP:MHA. If you wish for a more in depth review, you might consider a peer view. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that this article should include information about non-Japanese (Filipinos, Koreans, Manchurians, Taiwanese) people who served in the Japanese Army during WW2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Final Paragraph Under fanaticism and war crimes is unclear in several places
I would like to raise several points of ambiguity for discussion. I have refrained from making any changes until I see if there is some consensus on what the paragraph is actually trying to say.
"The reputation of Imperial Army troops during the Pacific War of never surrendering is borne out by the extremely small number captured throughout the entire Pacific campaign compared with their opponents (80,000 British and Commonwealth prisoners were captured at Singapore alone). While the numbers are small by comparison to the European Theatre, in the South West Pacific Area (SWPA) just over 1,000 surrendered in each of 1942 and 1943, around 5,100 in 1944, and over 12,000 in 1945, and might have been greater except for American shooting of prisoners."
1.) Exactly what numbers are small by comparison to the European Theatre, the numbers of prisoners or the numbers of combatants engaged and how is that relevant to the issue being discussed?
2.) While I won't dispute that there are documented instances of American shooting prisoners nor will I dispute that the absolute numbers of captured Japanese personnel would have been higher without them. I question whether the difference would be significant enough to significantly affect the comparison being made (that of the 80,000 british and commonweath prisoners captured at singapore alone being nearly four times greater than the number of Japanese personnel captured during the entire war) as the statement seems to imply. If not then it is a best an unnecessary qualification.
"The effect of psychological warfare was noticeable (about 20% of surrenders were directly due to it, and many more were influenced), amounting to about one POW for every 6,000 leaflets dropped, while the Japanese objected to the "unscrupulous" leaflets, which expressly contained nothing but the truth. This was in stark contrast to IJA's practice of circulating false stories, which leaflets revealed to be false when Army efforts to black out news left the leaflets as the only source of any news."
3.) Whose psychological warfare? The effect of psychological warfare on what? I propose (assuming my interpretation of the author's intent was correct that the sentence should read something like this: "The effect of American psychological warfare on the numbers of surrendering Japanese troops was noticeable..." Buckfan328 (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've rewritten the paragraph because it contradicts itself. Propaganda leaflet drops being effective versus low numbers of prisoners taken; can't have both. I have reservations also of exclusive single-source attribution to print references (Dower, Gilmore) from the non-Japanese standpoint with regards to this topic. Actually, the entire section is crap, but I'm leery of touching it further at this time because it promises nationalist edit war if it's not done right. I'll return to this article when time permits. Jun Kayama (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Atrocities of Imperial Japanese Army
There should be a section dedidicated to war atrocities of Imperial Japanese Army. The IJA is notorious for committing hideous crimes again humanity. So far I haven't heard any other army in the world that exceeded what IJA had done, not even Nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
More informational and less sensational, please
Although there are details of several campaigns and other such actions by the Japanese military, there is not very much in the article about how the Japanese military was actually organized. Although I understand it is a tall order, I'd like to suggest that someone with expertise on the matter goes over this article and writes something which is a little bit more informational and a bit less sensational. Wistchars (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)