Talk:Axis leaders of World War II

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Biography / Asian / Balkan / European / German / Italian / Japanese / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Asian military history task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force German military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Japanese military history task force World War II task force

There is much a "modern politics" influencing this article. Examples are the inclusions of Iraq and Iran, which surprises not those who know recent history. One can include many more countries and leaders for opposing the british and french rule, and call these pro-Nazi; Ofcourse these are not important for todays politics, and as such are not mentioned! I have done some minor edits, but I am by no means a professional historian. I therefore call upon professionals to mend this article; The Middle East suffers to this day the affter effects of the past European occupation, but with the aid of such professionals, one can avoid adding insult to injury. One must understand that I am asking for truth, not a pacifier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.139.131 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article would be more appropriately titled, "List of Axis leaders of World War II." Cla68 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added flags beside each countries name to match the Allied commanders of WW2 page. If we can't have pretty flags on the infobox then we may as well have them here n'est-ce pas. By the way, I am unsure about the flag for China-Nanjing, and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In a WW2 infobox in another article I found the China-Nanjing flag was the same as Republic of China, so I chose it. If it or the Kingdom of Yugoslavia flag are incorrect feel free to fix it or let me know so I can. Thanks, Basser g 05:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's that? Is Rudolf Hess meant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.176.194.52 (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I know the USSR was at first part of the Axis so I would recommend that the only generals to be included in the list are the ones who lead the invasion of Poland. RedNeckIQ55 (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR was not part of the Axis. It was neutral.--Dojarca (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems perverse to list people like Hess and Kaltenbrunner, who had little to do with the conduct of the war, and relatively junior generals like Manstein and Rommel, while skipping out on a large number of the most senior generals and even political figures. I'm going to add Keitel, Jodl, Ribbentrop, Speer, Brauchitsch, and probably some of the more senior German field commanders - certainly Rundstedt, Bock, and Kesselring deserve specific mention, and probably some others. john k (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Vichy be listed as an Axis power? It was not officially aligned with the Germans in any way (unlike, for instance, occupied Denmark), nor did it declare war on the Allies. They did fight the Allies on a number of occasions - most notably in Syria and Lebanon in 1941 and in North Africa in 1942. Should they stay? john k (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly, as one of Nazi Germany's puppet states. --24.184.200.190 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The segment on Iran does not have any source to support its claims. There are in fact many claims that are either not related to this article or/and are manipulation of facts.

It says in the article that "During the war, Reza Shah had a policy of neutrality but had built strong relations with Nazi Germany." Political relation cannot be translated into cooperation or supporting Germany in "war", or even close to what this article is about, being an "Axis leader" in war. Reza believed that Germany is winning the war & sought relation with Germany for long term benefit. Again, this does not translate to being a leader in WWII. In fact if "political relation" with Nazi Germany is being an Axis nation arguably Britain would also be considered as part of Axis alliance.

It is a well known fact that Reza Shah Pahlavi was installed by Britain, and was a British puppet. It does not seem logical that a British puppet take measures that would be so against his masters. I will remove the part until authors present reliable sources. It appears that what is presented here maybe a better fit for the WWII article itself.

This article is in serious need of a rewrite. --74.12.96.197 (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that he did side with BOTH sides in the conflict, before refusing to expel Axis citizens from his terrirtory, thus resulting in an Anglo-Soviet invasion, just as some of the other people mentioned here as Axis leaders did. He should be in. FOARP (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finland and Thailand were not members of the Axis but co-belligerents. The article should either be renamed Axis and co-belligerents of the Axis leaders of World War II or Finland and Thailand dropped completely. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Published references include http://www.papuaweb.org/dlib/bk/penders2002/01.pdf and Sukarno and the Struggle for Indonesian Independence By Bernhard Dahm. (Translated by Mary F. Somers Heidhues.) Cornell University Press: Ithaca and London, 1969.122.106.230.171 (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the first sentence says the tripartite pact was in 1936, but on the page for the tripartite act, it says it was singed in 1940 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.79.139 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent deletion of Finland from the list that I restored because I felt it did not tell the whole story. I instead moved the Finland section (along with Iraq and Thailand) to a dedicated Co-belligerent state combatants section to mimic the structure of the Axis powers article. In the heading it is made clear that these countries were not formally part of the Axis.

If anyone has any issues with this, please discuss them below.

Thanks! --KNHaw ^(talk) 17:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Field Marshal Plaek Phibunsongkhram (coloured version).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Horthy 1943.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently includes an image of a Japanese Propaganda poster: File:1938 Naka yoshi sangoku.jpg. The image caption reads Japanese propaganda poster of the Shōwa erashowing Adolf Hitler, Hirohito and Benito Mussolini, the political leaders of the three main Axis powers in 1940.

In the image itself, the caption beneath the middle portrait reads (from right to left) "近衞首相", (Konoe Prime Minister), and, based on comparison with other photos of both persons, the picture clearly depicts Konoe Fumimaro, not Hirohito. The corresponding captions beneath the other two portraits are "ムッソリーニ” (Mussolini) and "ヒットラー" (Hitler). - Rotary Engine ^talk 10:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will again restore this back to Konoe. - Rotary Engine ^talk 10:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have left a note at WP:JAPAN seeking input from uninvolved editors. - Rotary Engine ^talk 10:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm an uninvolved editor and I'll try to give an opinion that helps settle this discussion.

• First, indeed, the disputed picture clearly depicts the then prime minister Konoe. It should not be confused with a photo of Hirohito, although they were related and there may be some degree of resemblance.
• Second, this fact can be easily explained:

This is a Japanese poster. In the time of Imperial Japan, the image of the emperor (Hirohito, in 1940) could only be used in official portraits. Any other public use of it (such as publishing it on posters, postcards, publication covers...) was considered disrespectful to a sovereign considered divine by the Japanese Empire. Thus, the publication of a photograph of Hirohito on the cover of the famous American magazine 'Time' provoked a formal protest from the Japanese government to the United States Department of State.

Likewise, presenting the image of Hirohito (a divine leader, in the eyes of the Japanese regime) on an equal footing with foreign leaders (mere human beings in the same perspective) was unthinkable. The emperor therefore had to be represented in these cases through a 'merely human' dignitary. The current prime minister (Konoe, in 1940) was the most logical option.

This problem did not occur in other Axis countries. For example, on this website we can see a Hungarian postcard from the time that represents Regent Horthy and his son along with the main Axis leaders (Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito).Ulises Laertíada (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To make a long story long, we look at File: Плакат в Музее Победы.jpg. It is as photo taken in a Russian Museum in Moskow (Category:"Tripartite Pact" and "Axis Powers") which was uploaded from here: https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8B_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5 The official Museum description tells us the year: 1940, which annuls the 1938 signature as well as the description "Antikomintern Pact" on analogue files. The partners of the Antikomintern in 1936 were Germany and Japon which leads us to the guys on top of the File in discussion. No doubt about Hitler and Mussolini. But who is guy in the middle? The only we have as a source are Japanese characters. Inserted in a "Wadoku-Translator" we learn, that it is a Japonese postcard belonging to a person named "Roh" (Korean family name), despicting flags with the title " "Good Friends of three countries". The Tripartite Pact though, as an invention of Hitler, was signed in the first original version on September 27, 1940 by Foreign Ministers von Ribbentrop (Germany), Ciano (Italy) and Saburu Karusu (Ambassador in Berlin).

Coming to the main issue, the person in the middle of the poster. It can`t be Hirohito, argues User: Ulises Laertíada as uinvolved editor, since supposedly no pictures of the godlike emperor were allowed. Looking at the tons of publications wordlwide (also official ones in Japan) from Hirohito and his family this argument fails to be trustworthy. For instance one can find an authorized print of the early "holy familiy" in American newspapers as early as 1904 (File:Imperial Family of Japan (1904).jpg).

Now. back to the person in the middle. By comparing PM Konoe (who is on nearly all photographs dressed in diplomatic outfits, not as prince) I found another item which can help us. From around 1928 Hirohito is wearing glasses, which the person in the middle is not equipped with. Therefore, and by comparison of the faces, I agree that the person with the bushy hat might be rather Konoe als Prime Minister than Hirohito. Conclusio: I am going to correct the File description concerning the depicted person. Other corrections (year and pact) wil remain, since the proof lies within the Museum photos. Thanks for your cooperation. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Christian Riemann From where comes it is a Japonese postcard belonging to a person named "Roh" (Korean family name)? None of the text on the postcard mentions Korea or any "Roh". Rotary Engine ^talk 21:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I had a bit of a search around for "Wadoku", and I think I have found it. If I take the Japanese description (1938年の絵葉書”仲良し三国”) from the Wikipedia Commons File:1938 Naka yoshi sangoku.jpg and paste it into www.wadoku.de it performs a machine translation.
But it does so piecewise; splitting out １９、３８、年、の、絵葉書、”、仲良し、三国、” and translating each of them separately, without context of the surrounding text. For the translations of の, it not only includes translations of that kana, but also of homophonic kanji - including the obvious 野, but also 盧, which it suggests can be used as a Korean family name (pronounced ろう).
Written の is not 盧. From the context of the phrase, the intended use is as a possessive particle; "1938年の絵葉書" => 1938(year)'s picture postcard. - Rotary Engine ^talk 03:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must make a nuance:

User: Peter Christian Riemann says that my argument that no pictures of the godlike emperor were allowed fails to be trutsworthy because of the publication of a picture of the Japanese Imperial Family... in an American newspaper. Well, I clearly said it was a taboo in Japan. Yes, I cited the Japanese formal protest for the publication of a picture of Hirohito in 'Time' magazine. First, this protest was a fact (I'm not making it up) and second, obviously, protesting the cover of an international magazine does not extend to protesting every time its image appears in any newspaper (especially a foreign one).

I clearly wrote the image of the emperor (Hirohito, in 1940) could only be used in official portraits, and User: Peter Christian Riemann replies appealing to its use in "also official ones in Japan". Does this make any sense when I said that its official use is what was permitted? The use considered irreverent was that which occurred on any unauthorized postcard, magazine or cover of a particular publication, and never equating him to foreign leaders not considered divine like him.

In short, clearly User: Peter Christian Riemann has not understood what I wrote. In Imperial Japan, the image of the Emperor could be used only in official ways and never on an equal footing with foreign leaders considered as merely human by the Japanese regime. That was the reality. Appealing to photos in American newspapers is certainly a erroneous and failed argument. It's as if I denied my own argument by appealing to the Hungarian postcard I linked. It would not make sense.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ulises Laertíada I'm inclined to agree. The case you put forward on the use of the Emperor's image for non-official/propaganda purposes is entirely reasonable. It provides a very good explanation as to why the image could not, should not or would not be that of Hirohito. Particularly so when there is a plethora of similar Japanese propaganda featuring the triumvirate of Hitler, Mussolini & Konoe; but not Hirohito. But what's dispositive is the image actually has Konoe's name & position written on it - "近衞首相" Konoe Prime Minister - right underneath his picture. Rotary Engine ^talk 04:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotary Engine, anyway, the case is settled, but the topic is still interesting: first of all, historians found no regulations of dealing with the Emperors portrayal in Japan, even the cliché of the godlike dogma is rather dubious: "But where is the famous dogma that the Tennō himself is a deity in human form (arahitogami) and that his descent from the Sun deity is a historical fact? Here too, official or semi-official documents are hard to find. However, an important role was played by the "Imperial Education Decree" (Kyōiku chokugo) of 1890" ("The divinity of Tennō", in: State-Shinto, religion-in-japan.univie.ac.at). May be it was "common sense" not to fool around with Tenno´s picture, which was part of the shrine in any classroom. But why not to install him together with other Head of States on a semi official poster? Another, and I think more striking argument that Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe (last of the Fujiware clan) showed up on the postcard instead of Hirohito, is put forward by the historian Herbert P. Bix: "From 1928 to 1930, the world economic crisis shook the industrialized nations, which now included Japan. The living conditions of many Japanese people worsened. In order to finally pull Japan out of this economic and moral low, radical right-wing politicians elevated the god emperor to the central figure. But without the express consent of His Majesty. This became symptomatic of the relationship between politics and emperor. In fact, the Japanese monarchs were and are persons who can never act arbitrarily or even arbitrarily. This means that they must constantly reflect the public will and the aims of the elites in the execution of state affairs." (Bix, P. Herbert: Hirohito and the making of modern Japan. Perennial, Harper Collins Publishers, 1st Edition, New York 2001, page 80). Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Christian Riemann, I don't think so:

• First, I didn't find that text in Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, at least not in page 80. Please indicate the correct page to be able to compare it. I have the book in print, the link is just so anyone can check it out.
• Second, what I could find in that book is this: Moreover, at key moments for which documentary evidence is available, Hirohito not only involved himself, sometimes on a daily basis, in shaping strategy and deciding the planning, timing, and so on of military campaigns, but also intervened in ongoing field operations to make changes that would not have occurred without his intervention (p. 331 of the book). And too During the naisô briefings, exchanges of information and ideas could lead to discussions of policy, strategy, even tactical matters, and to decisions arrived at by Japanese-style "consensus"--with the result that cabinet decisions were predetermined "finished products that mirrored" Hirohito's thinking and therefore rarely had to be revised (pp. 331-332). And Kido alluded to this reality in discussing the emperor's war responsibility on July 21, 1964. "When the emperor was not persuaded," he explained, "the question would be suspended and the decision postponed or the cabinet would reconsider the matter. That was the custom." (p. 736, note 42). In short, neither Herbert P. Bix nor Koichi Kido seem to endorse in any way that the cause of using Konoe's image is what you propose.
• Third, if you want some information on regulations of dealing with the Emperors portrayal in Japan, you can find it in "Men in Metal", by Dr. Sven Saaler (Brill Publishers, 2020), in pages 34 to 42. An example from page 35: The government issued further decrees to prevent the desecration of the "holy portrait". These even impacted the private sphere, such the 1892 Home Ministry ordinance "Regarding the Respected photograph" (Sishon no go-shashin ni kansuru ken) and the 1898 ordinance "Regarding the Regulation of the Honorable Portrait" (Go-shôzô torishimari ni kansuru ken), both passed in reaction to an upsurge of imperial imagery in the late 1880s and the early 1890s. The 1898 ordinance stipulated that the go-shin'ei could not be used without the appropriate honorific caption. Moreover, poor-quality reproductions could trigger charges of lèse majesté. The reproduction of the emperor's portrait on advertisements, including fans, was forbidden because this would "most likely" constitute such an act; the same held true for the display of imperial portrait in an unsuitable location. The sale of imperial imagery in outdoor shops (roten) was similarly banned. In addition to the above regulations, newspapers reproductions of the portrait must not be cropped or edited in any way, and "nothing inappropriate" should be printed on the back. Furthermore, the copies of newspapers with the emperor's portrait had to be treated with care, even within the private sphere; they should not be hung in the toilet, used to put your shoes on, or scribbled upon. If they were to be disposed of, the sacred portrait should be cut out of the newspaper, placed in a wooden box, and then burned. NOTE: The go-shin'ei is the "sacred portrait", that is, the emperor's portrait.

It seems evident that the portrait of the emperor could not be used in a discretionary way in Imperial Japan, and even less so in a mere propaganda poster.

There are more and more historians who consider that Hirohito was in no way a figurehead.

Three examples:

• Kenneth J. Ruoff, Director of the Center for Japanese Studies at Portland State University, writes in his book The People’s Emperor: Democracy and the Japanese Monarchy, 1945-1995 (2001, p.127) that "If 'war responsibility' means participating in the policymaking process that led to the commencement and prosecution of an aggressive war (for many Japanese, the key issue was the responsibility for defeat, not complicity in an aggressive war), then there is growing evidence that Emperor Hirohito played a considerable role in this area".
• Peter Wetzler writes in his recent book Imperial Japan and Defeat in the Second World War: The Collapse of an Empire (2020, p.175) that "During the Tokyo War Crimes Trials the testimony offered by Tôjô Hideki, and gladly accepted by US officials, succeeded in exonerating the Shôwa Emperor of war guilt. The debate, however, about Hirohito's participation in political and military affairs during the Second World War -whether or not (at first) and to what extent (later)- still continues. It will animate authors for years to come. Now most historians acknowledge that the Emperor was deeply involved, like all nation-state leaders at that time."
• Takahisa Furukawa, expert on wartime history from Nihon University, described wartime prime minister Hideki Tojo with this words: "Tojo is a bureaucrat who was incapable of making own decisions, so he turned to the Emperor as his supervisor. That's why he had to report everything for the Emperor to decide. If the Emperor didn't say no, then he would proceed." We can see it in this article.

In conclusion, trying to explain the use of Konoe's image by questioning the authority or active role of the emperor in Imperial Japan, when more and more historians consider that his involvement was deep and active (although there is still controversy about the exact scope) seems misguided. Furthermore, in the Hungarian postcard that I linked and in which Hirohito is portrayed on equal footing with Hitler, Mussolini and Horthy father and son indicates that in Hungary they considered the emperor to be the true leader of their Japanese allies. The difference with Japan is that in Hungary there were no restrictions on the use of the image of the Japanese emperor, since for them it was not "sacred". I repeat once again, and I hope I have demonstrated with Dr. Saaler's book, that when I talk about the emperor's portrait being considered sacred in Imperial Japan and there were severe restrictions on its use, I am not formulating a more or less plausible hypothesis, but remembering a known fact.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ulises Laertíada My only goal was to clarify the somewhat rather mystic File:1938 Naka yoshi sangoku.jpg and its false attributions (1938 and Komintern), with the help of another one (File:Плакат в Музее Победы.jpg) and by research on different articles. We also clarified the portait in the middle. It is rather reasonable that this is Konoe, who was # 38 Prime Minister (July 22 1940 - July 18 1941) at the time when the treaty was signed (September 27, 1940).

To clarify why Hirohito was not chosen as representative of Japon on a contemporary Japanese footage is quite another topic since his role and responsibility as emperor of the Shōwa period (“Bright Peace”/“Enlightened Harmony”) is still under question among historians. So I feel responsable to start this argumentation (which might lead to nowhere) by using a rather accurate elaboration (https://nippon-info.de/landeskunde/staatswesen/japans-kaiser/), with the source-quote: Bix, P. Herbert: Hirohito and the making of modern Japan. Perennial, Harper Collins Publishers, 1st Edition, New York 2001, S. 80 [5]. I guess you couldn`t find the quote because it refers to the Harper book and not to the e-paper which has no pages. Nevertheless, thank´s for all the information you presented in this dicussion. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Christian Riemann Well, as for the quote from "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan", the problem was not the e-paper because, as I said before, I have the book in print (that is, the Harper edition). I will reproduce verbatim page 80 of Harper's book to show what I mean (in the original page the word "constitutional" is incomplete [it comes from page 79] and only appear "tional"):

(...)constitutional thought, particularly that of Georg Jellinek (1851–1911), a legal philosopher who exerted a strong influence on Japanese constitutional thinkers. Minobe himself had used it in 1912 when he said the emperor was like the head of a human body, except that he was thinking not of himself but the country. In the end it was precisely the vagueness and ambiguity of Shimizu’s thought that most appealed to Hirohito, who, despite his later claim to the contrary, was inclined toward the same thing. Finally, when memory of the emperor Meiji was still a vivid part of Japanese hagiography, Shimizu reinforced both Sugiura and Shiratori in idolizing Meiji as the perfect model of a monarch. Shimizu contributed to the Meiji myth by stressing that emperors could not act arbitrarily but had to reflect “public opinion” in their conduct of state affairs just as Meiji had done in his Charter Oath. All three teachers told fairy tales of Meiji’s personal qualities, which had enabled him to achieve his great enterprise of transforming Japan into a major imperial power but were conspicuously lacking with Taishō. All three wanted Hirohito to retrieve the lost image of Meiji, which they had built up and romanticized in their different ways. And so they drove home the point that Japan needed a new Meiji, and that he would be the one to fulfill the role and match his grandfather’s attainments. Influenced by the ideas of Sugiura, Shiratori, and the hopelessly contradictory Shimizu, Hirohito strove to measure up to his symbolic grandfather whom he was so unlike in temperament, character, and interests. Hirohito also came to believe in the sacred nature of his own authority, as defined in the Meiji constitution. But the liberal “organ theory” created by Minobe and used by the party cabinets 52 of the 1920s he always regarded as a mere academic theory, good for debating in the universities but not something on which to base his own actions. Nor did he act in accordance with absolutist theological interpretations. In fact Hirohito was never a devotee of any theory of constitutional monarchy; the constitution (...) (This is where it ends at page 80.) In page 81 the paragraph concludes with these words: did not provide standards for him in making important political decisions, for, like his grandfather, he believed he stood above all national law. The real constraints on his behavior, including Meiji’s spiritual legacy, had nothing to do with the constitution, and even that he set aside when circumstances dictated.

Obviously, the website you cite gives an erroneous reference. The only similar thing is Shimizu's words about Meiji, but that has nothing to do with the period 1928-1930 or with the politicians of those years or where they could elevate the emperor. It refers to Hirohito's education during his school period. Thank you, in any case, for your clarification.

I agree not to delve further into this discussion regarding the Japanese leaders, since it is not necessary.

For the rest, I hope that the information about the regulation on the use of the emperor's portrait has been useful to you. All the best.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that the text quoted above From 1928 to 1930, the world economic crisis shook the industrialized nations... is not found in my copy of Bix's Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. I have an e-book, which has the advance of being searchable. - Rotary Engine ^talk 20:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ulises Laertiada, sorry about the misunderstandings on either side. Once you look at the File:Imperial Family of Japan (1904).jpg), which is a picture of the Emperor Meiji with his family it tells you underneath in capital letters: "This is the first picture of the Japanese Imperial Family to be published in the United States, and was secured for publication in this paper by one of the newspaper enterprise association`s special commissioners in Tokio." Since no sources or official statements of the treatment of pictures of the emperor Hirohito can be found, your personal argument is plausible but no proof for the discussion. Also I guess it is rather hard to decipher the washed out Japanese characters on the postcard. Nevertheless the case has been resolved by the missing eyeglasses of the person in the middle. Thanks Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered above. I refer to the aforementioned book by Dr. Saaler. Ulises Laertíada (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I simply put the Japanese characters, which I took from the file descriptions, into the wadoku translating machine and trusted the text, telling me what I was putting forward. The problem of the whole issue was, that the person who uploaded the file produced so many mistakes. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation isn't reliable. It routinely produces errors; particularly so when there is little to no understanding of the input language. - Rotary Engine ^talk 02:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that they did make many mistakes. The previous description at this article, and at the Japanese article, were correct that the image depicted Hitler, Konoe, Mussolini; as anyone semi-literate in Japanese could easily tell.
The Japanese description prior to December 4 was 1938年の絵葉書”仲良し三国” (日独防共協定) (日独伊防共協定}), which is not contradicted by the image itself. There is nothing written on the card about either the Anti-Comintern Pact (which from November 6, 1937 included Italy) or the Tripartite Pact. A placard on a wall in a museum in Moscow is not particularly compelling; though it is better than nothing.
By contrast, this article published by Tokyo University says 1938. And so does this article. But the second is probably sourced from Wikipedia. This source says Showa 12 (1937), and adds that the document was a supplement to a Year 3 Elementary School magazine. That seems very specific, and definitely not sourced from Wikipedia.
It is demonstrable that propaganda materials featuring all 3 nations were produced prior to the signing of the Tripartite Pact in 1940. Here and here and here are some examples; including postcards postmarked Showa 12.11.25 (1937), which feature the flags of Japan, Germany & Italy in both the image and the postmark, and which explicitly mention the Anti-Comintern Pact (日独伊三国防共協定). Where a triumvirate is shown, it is invariably Hitler, Mussolini, Konoe; never the Emperor.
Is the postcard at File:1938 Naka yoshi sangoku.jpg an example from this time or was it produced later, in 1940? Based solely on the content of the card, it is impossible to say. Unfortunately, the original uploaded file on ja.Wikipedia has been deleted; so we have lost details of the original source. Without stronger sourcing than the Moscow museum placard, I would be inclined to go with the Japanese sources (1938) or to omit mention of either date & either Pact. - Rotary Engine ^talk 21:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User: Rotary Engine I think, that the inscription in the Russion Museum ist more reliable, than all the postcards with the literal double reference (in Japanese characters!) to Anti-Comintern Pact plus Tripartite Pact. These are historically two distinct treaties. In the first one Italy was not at all involved, which makes all other assumptions which were posted here, rather shaky. In addition to this propanganda poster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact#/media/File:Shashin_Shuho_No_151.jpg, I found another convincing photo:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Celebration_of_the_Japan-Germany-Italy-Triparite-Pact_(1940)_in_Tokio.jpg, which is now within the process of verification (Mail to uploader and VRT-Team). I think that these two sources are more convincing than all other arguments. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]