The Quality Mechanical Camera: Japan vs. Germany

<p>Nikon's roots go back to about WW1.; the war to end all wars. <br /> <br /> Nikon built the 1930's Canon 35mm RF camaras lenses. Pre WW2 Canons have Nikkor lenses.</p>

<p>Nikon made microscopes, binos etc before WW2.</p>

<p>Nikon made lenses for 1/4 plate view cameras before WW2</p>

<p>Nikon was making optical items for 20 to 25 years before WW2; thus to make stuff during WW2 was no surprise; ie they were already experts and had the equipment; tools and engineers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jeff: Interesting trade-off analogy regarding the station wagon vs. a minivan, and the reel to reel vs. the cassette deck. As an aside, I have inherited my father's Akai reel to reel. It's beautifully made and finished but pales in comparison to a $20 plastic CD player in sound quality. But consider that station wagons are actually making a come-back. As minivans become terminally uncool (despite their many attributes) and SUVs become politically incorrect, more manufacturers are producing classic station wagons or crossovers. How does that relate to cameras -- I don't know. But I do know that using a razor vs. an electric shaver is more likely to give me rash!</p>

 

<p>Jeff Adler-<br /> I don't agree with you on the Fujica ST801 not doing very well now. It's fully manual and mechanical. Only the meter needs a battery. I have found the meter to be holding up well, as well as the mechanicals. My own I've had since 1974 and the meter is completely accurate and responsive. I've seen the same on several others, so would consider it to have held up just fine.<br /> Flexible circuit board use started with the 901, so the 701 and 801 are immune from the problems specific to that.</p>

<p>I also disagree with the characterization of the OM's as non-system cameras. They had an extensive system of accessories, enough, IMO, to qualify the OM series as a system. That was one of the things they pushed in their advertising: "The OM System". Lack of interchangeable finders can be viewed as a shortcoming, but I don't think it disqualifies it.</p>

<p>I also don't agree with Mark that the Copal Square was a huge improvement over cloth shutters. Cloth shutters were used long after it came out. The CS gave manufacturers a ready made shutter assembly and higher sync speeds as well, both good things. But it was also noisier and had more vibration on opening than cloth shutters. It was more vulnerable to damage while loading. So I would not call it a huge improvement, though I would certainly call it a very successful innovation. </p>

<p>Nikon making optical items for WW2 is like :</p>

<p>(1) GE making AC or DC motors for WW2; or</p>

<p>(2) Boeing making airplanes for WW2</p>

<p>(3) Or Kodak making film for WW2</p>

<p>(4) Or Zeiss or Wild making optics for WW2 for the Germans</p>

<p>These companies were already experts; thus a no brainer to use them for military goods.</p>

<p>I recall some years ago a post with a link to a scan of an article in a US photography magazine from the late 40s or early 50s. Some legislation took down some trade barrier with Japan and the article said it would create a new big market for US camera manufacturers</p>

 

<p>The big loser in all this, for a variety of reasons, was the US camera industry. Argus was really the only company to survive more than a decade after the end of WWII, and as much as I have a good Argus collection, it's easy to see where German and Japanese cameras eclipsed anything made in the US. Yes, Kodak produced a few really nice cameras, too, but only the Medalist and the Ektra and Chevron were made in the USA. Nagel made the Retinas. However, the cost of manufacturing anything but cheap snapshot cameras here, made producing quality photographic gear a niche product (press cameras, for example). </p>

<p>Jeff, What I have read about the 801 has to do with the LEDs, not the shutter. The 801 has silicon meter cells and that was a big improvement. When I switch from a Canon F-1 or FTb to an EF I can see how much faster the meter response is. I don't have anything against Olympus OM cameras just because they don't have interchangeable finders but I do think that changing the focusing screen in a Canon F-1 or Nikon F2 is easier than changing the screen in an OM-1 or Minolta X-700 or Canon AE-1 Program. The funny thing is that I have five OM bodies but not one of them has interchangeable screens: three OM-10s, an OM PC and an OM 2000. I do have the Vari-Magni, which I have used more with non-Olympus cameras. It can be useful in certain situations even if it does not offer the versatility of the Speed Finder or Waist Level finder of the F-1. What about cloth shutters? I learned picture taking with a Konica Autoreflex T2 which had a Copal Square metal bladed shutter. At that time the extra noise of the shutter did not bother me. I just assumed that metal was stronger than cloth and that if I had the camera for a long time the metal shutter would be more durable. I did notice that friends of mine in the High School photography club who had Minolta SRT 101 and Pentax Spotmatic II cameras got more ghost images when they used flash indoors anywhere near a light source. When I started to collect cameras many years later I saw that cloth shutters could also work well and last a long time. Olympus was one of the few companies to make a 35mm SLR with a cloth shutter having a top speed of 1/2000. If I am not mistaken there was a Mamiya 2000 DTL which also had a cloth shutter and a top speed of 1/2000. That is a very rare camera and not nearly as advanced in other ways as the Olympus OM3 or OM4 series cameras.<br>

My favorite cameras for daily use are the Canon F-1, the Minolta X-700 and the Nikkormat FT2. The Canon F-1 has a titanium foil horizontal shutter with a slow flash synch speed. The Minolta X-700 has a cloth horizontal shutter with a slow flash synch speed. The Nikkormat FT2 has a metal vertical shutter with a faster flash synch speed. Oddly enough I do most of my flash photography with an X-700. I really like the 360PX and 280PX flash units with the TTL flash capability. The fastest flash synch speed of any of my cameras is 1/250. That's on a Nikon FE2. My DSLR, a Pentax K-x, has a top shutter speed of 1/6000 and a flash synch speed of 1/180. I started using a Canon F-1N only recently. It's odd in that it allows manual use of shutter speeds from 1/90 to 1/2000 if your battery dies but with a good battery you have all speeds and the fast silicon meter cells. Unfortunately it does not have TTL flash capability. </p>

<p>"the Japanese overtook the Germans after WW2"<br>

It depends what country it is viewed from. The East German made Praktica was never popular in the US, I don't know why,but at one time it had up to 25% of SLR sales in some countries in Europe and even just before the Pentacon company that made it closed after German reunification c1990 the Prakticas had 5% of world SLR sales.Once Germany was reunified the FSU which took 65% of production was no longer allowed to pay in transfer roubles.That was the end of Praktica production and the Japanese took this remaining western market,apart from the top end West German production,at least in Europe.</p>

<p>I have not heard of problems with LEDs on the ST801's. I suppose it could be that some have failed, but all I have seen still work fine. I suspect most problems would be from the variable resistors for aperture, shutter or ASA. I suspect that being the first, it was somewhat overengineered, given that they, for example, claimed to use Teflon insulated wires.<br /> The 801's readout, was the first, and in my opinion, the best of the manual LED readouts. I say that because it indicated up to 3 stops over or under, which made it easy to use quickly. To compensate for backlight, etc., it was not necessary to find proper exposure then compensate: just choose an LED representing the number of stops over or under. It was also great for metering incident off my hand (take a reading, expose at one stop over that), as I could use the LED above center as if it were the center one. Relative brightness enabled distinguishing to 1/4 stop.</p>

<p>I don't hold it against a manual exposure mechanical camera model if their meters are failing, if they are holding up otherwise.</p>

<p>My Pentax LX is a great machine, with interchangeable finders, but the screens are changed through the lens mount. A big pain compared to my F3!</p>

<p>The cloth shutter in my ST801 (which went to 1/2000th) was much quieter and had much less vibration than the one in, say, the Nikkormat. The Copal Square was just known for being loud and having a whack to it. Cloth shutters are renown for quietness and low vibration. The one in my Pentax MX is much quieter and has much lower vibration, especially on first curtain opening, than the one in my LX (horizontal titanium), F3 (same), or ME Super (vertical metal bladed). That was one of the nice things about the OM-1, especially on a tripod with the mirror locked up. Virtually no shutter-induced vibration and very quiet. Leicas stayed with cloth shutters for that reason.<br /> I figure it's because cloth does not generate or transmit much noise, and its high flexibility allows it to absorb shock easily.</p>

<p>Regarding durability between cloth and metal shutters, I think they're good in different ways. The Copal Square was noted for reliability. Its one stop higher sync speed was highly valued. Nikon's use of it in the Nikkormat/Nikomat was regarded as a big vote of confidence at that time, though they still went with the tried and true horizontal design on their pro bodies for many years more. The CS was modular, so if it failed it was replaced as a unit. Horizontal shutters were not modular to the same degree, so parts replacement was a bigger job. Less modularity gave designers more options on where to place timing mechanisms; a big plus on tightly packed machines like the OM-1 and the MX. And for that matter, the ST801.<br /> The vertical metal shutters could leak light between the blades, so mirror lockup wasn't an option. Mirror lockup was OK with cloth shutters, but if a sharp image of the sun was in the frame with the shutter closed, burn-through could occur rapidly. Horizontal titanium shutters were definitely not as quiet or free of vibration as cloth, but offered high durability and resistance to burn-through. The titanium, while tough, was very thin, like foil, and was susceptible to damage from an errant finger or thumb. Pro's were supposed to know better, so it was an acceptable vulnerability.<br /> I think cloth shutters were better for beginners' cameras because if they poked the shutter curtain while loading they were less likely to damage the shutter. If they knocked it off track it cost less than replacing a whole shutter. Cloth can take a whole lot more deflection without damage.<br /> Metal shutter blades are very thin, and the arms and pivots add complexity, but they last very well. Plastic blades have replaced metal in many machines. Vertical-travel shutters have been refined way beyond the CS, make less noise and vibration, and dual shutter mechanisms in high end machines allow mirror lockup.</p>

<p>I have a number of Nikkormats and Nikomats ranging from the original FT to the FT3. They all have the Copal Square shutter and also have mirror lock-up. I find the mirror lock-up on Canon cameras from that time easier to use but the feature was on the mechanical Nikkormats. I would have to think a little to come up with any other such examples. Now that I think of it, the Canon EF has a version of the Copal Square shutter and also has mirror lock-up. When Cosina started to make VF and RF cameras with the Voigtlander name it ran into this situation. The Voigtlander Bessa L is mostly an SLR with the prism missing. To make the shutter more light tight Cosina modified it for use in these cameras. I have a number of Cosina made SLRs with slightly different shutters and top shutter speeds. <br>

I remember going to the Japan Camera Show in what I think was the fall of 1972 or the spring of 1973. The Yachica booth had a demonstration where the Electro 35s were dropped on the floor, banged on the floor and stepped on and the meter kept working. At the Olympus booth the demonstrator kept pushing his finger into the shutter of the OM-1, through the back. The curtains just kept bouncing back. I wouldn't have had the nerve to do it but it was impressive to watch. When I see old cameras which have Copal Square shutters, in many cases the shutter is still working but other mechanical problems have set in elsewhere.<br>

There are practical reasons for not having cloth shutters with very high top speeds. The Minolta Maxxum 9xi had a top speed of 1/12000. I think this speed was only available in a Program or Aperture Priority mode so the user wouldn't go crazy shooting too often at that speed. This camera had a vertical shutter. For now the highest shutter seed I have on any of my film cameras is 1/4000 and on a DSLR 1/6000. The very highest speeds are not needed for general shooting but can be useful in certain situations. As high ISO performance improves in DSLRs the very high speeds may be used more. <br>

</p>

<p>Most CLOTH Focal plane shutters have a top speed of 1/1000 second.</p>

<p>A Graflex slr has a 1/1000 second speed 100 years ago.<br>

All you can do is make the slit narrower or crank up the tension.</p>

<p>With a Graflex SLR or Speed Graphic; there is only one cloth; one has many slit widths.</p>

<p>With a 35mm Leica one has two curtains; trying to get the gap narrow at tiny widths is an issue.</p>

<p>Well now, Jeff, you're right.<br>

Thinking baaaack, waay back, the Nikkormats did indeed have MLU. My bad for making a blanket statement about it based on a commonly stated reason which I never even heard until years after I first used an FTN. I somehow converted it to an absolute truth. I hate spewing inaccuracies. I plead, ahem, inanity. It's nice to have a conversation with someone who didn't seize the opportunity to do some flamin'.<br>

I wonder if the original Copal Square was less susceptible to the leakage problem than later shutters. Maybe due to its size there was more overlap or something. I don't remember Nikon saying anything about light leakage, and I don't recall it coming up as an issue in conversation.<br>

Those old 'mats are amazing. They were so well built. I haven't handled one in many years, but I imagine they're still going just fine, including their shutters. As I mentioned prior, I think Nikon's selection of the Copal Square for the Nikkormats really boosted it.</p>

<p>As I recall, most mechanical shutters at 1/2000 were not all that accurate. I believe the ST801 was closer to 1/1500 in actual use; maybe 1/1650 or so. I think tolerance was plus or minus 25% throughout the range, and above 1/1000 (or maybe it was 1/500), the standards were relaxed a little more.</p>

<p>The Nikkormat FS has no mirror lockup; the FT and FTn does; all three are the same shutter; unlike some weird rumours a few others on other threads have started.</p>

<p>An FS is a stripped down FT; no meter; no mirror lockup.<br>

Both came out the same time; the FS was lower in cost</p>

<p>The older Nikkorex F was a failure; the shutter was poor and failed.</p>

<p>It was made for Nikon by Mamyia; a sister model was made for Sears as a Tower slr. It was a big camera; not worth fixing later one after the Nikkormat came out in 1965. Before collectors fell in love with them recently; it was that just that ill experiment that caused the Nikkormat FS/FT to be designed.</p>

<p>I should say that I looked at a number of Nikkormats before making the last posting. Which mechanical Nikkormat am I missing? The FS. Pentax also made a meterless SLR at the same time that the Spotmatic was made. In the earlier years of SLRs with built in meters some professionals just used a hand held meter. The in-camera meter was just not trusted. The FS was not considered a stripped down model just because it lacked a meter amy more than a 4X5 camera was considered a stripped down model. It was thought of as a back-up camera a professional would use. There were probably some other reasons too. The FT was very annoying to use if your lenses weren't all the same speed. Not only was there no Automatic Indexing (1977), the back and forth twisting action had not been devised yet either. You had to manually index each lens if the maximum aperture was different. This was not particularly convenient even for 1965. The Canon FT QL of 1966 did not have an indexing problem but you had to live with stop down metering. What got me interested in Nikkormats was the first one I got. It turned out to be an FT with an FTN top. It took a while for me to sort that out. One odd thing I noticed about my "hybrid" FT was that when I mounted a 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor it wouldn't close down to f/32. Nikkormat FS bodies are popular with collectors and this has kept prices higher than I like. If I am going to use a separate meter I'd rather shoot with a medium format camera. </p>

<p>It is not only about precision machining. Whether it is cars, cameras, or fishing reels, the japanese have a great sense of man-machine interface. In 1966, I bought a Konica auto S2 in Vietnam for $35 at a PX, and the images were excellent but the ease of use was light years ahead of the Leica screwmounts.</p>

<p>Precisely my point of view, Mr. Kennedy! Whether they created the innovation or not, the Japanese simply had a different sensibility when it came to putting together complex mechano-optical light boxes. </p>

<p>Jeff;</p>

<p>the FS was priced less than a FT; it has less features; ie stripped up to lower cost.</p>

<p>In Detroit in 1965; the camera stores that sold Nikon called them a stripped down camera.</p>

<p>the Nikon salesman called them a stripped down camera.</p>

<p>Thus you cannot change history; that is how they were marketed.</p>

<p>They had no meter or mirror lockup; they cost less; they had 2 major features gone.</p>

<p>It is like a 1965 car without rear seat belts; without backup lights; without AC; ie less features. Maybe you are new to Nikon; I got my first used Nikon F in 1962. A Nikkormat FS *IS* a stripped down FT; do your homework and study a cameras features before trying to change history. Before collectors came around a FS *always* sold less than a FT or FTn. You *DEDUCTED* what a Nikkormat was worth in trade in if one had a FT versus a FTn; or more if one *only* had a FS. An FS was like a 6 or 4 cylinder camaro without AC; worth less.</p>

<p>Some of us who used Nikon F stuff about form the start *NEVER* had any issues with installing a lens ; aligning the fstop to F5.6; or even manually entering the F stop on ancient meters. We also used slide rules; drove stick shift cars and drove cars with manual steering too.</p>

<p>It is probably better to say that today folks are less able to deal with simple things; that folks long ago had few issues with.</p>

<p>A Nikkormat FT TTL meter with a 1/125 strobe sync speed was a HUGE thing back in 1965. For sports one did NOT have to remove the camera body from a tripod to reload; like one did for a Nikon F. Thus here using a Nikkoramt FT for shooting baseball in 1965 was a great tool. You are *WAY* off base if you think that setting a meter then was " not particularly convenient" it was a very simple thing; trival.</p>

<p>It is hard today since one has better schemes; thus your post makes it seem that this old childs play setting of the meter was so darn hard.<br>

<br /> <br /><br /> Maybe you can can say too it was impossible for folks to drive stick shifts or manually focus? having used both the FS and FT and later FTn's I find the reference that a FT was "not particularly convenient " super bizzare; comical; very sad and misleading; dumbing down.<br>

<br /> <br /><br /> Did you even use one in 1965?<br /> <br /><br /> A Nikkormat FS and FT gave us 1/125 strobe speeds in 1965; in an era when many slrs had just 1/60 and 1/30<br>

<br /><br /> The Nikkormat FS and FT allowed folks to use a tripod; reload and not have to remove the camera body to reload<br>

<br /><br /> The Nikkormat FT in 1965 was great for slide copying settups; no bellows corrections; no removing the camera body to reload like a Nikon F. It was a *TOTAL* breakthrough camera; the setting of the asa was childs play</p>

<p>In the mid 1970's a New Nikkormat body was about 200 bucks; a used Ftn about say 130; a used FT about 100. A used FS 60 to 80 bucks; a Used Nikkorex often 45 if working; dead ones 20 bucks. An FS was always priced lower than a FT or FTn until about a decade ago; it was that camera few used or wanted; more of a stripped freak that had a short life .<br>

Now retro folks want to collect them; like a 1960 Ford Falcon with a 144 CID motor. The FS had a following with strobes; a cheap 2nd or 3rd backup 60 back up used body. A used FS at one time cost less than a clunky Exakta slr body in the mid 1970's. I used to buy and sell on the Yellow Rag shutterbug then</p>

<p>Kelly, I see you are a passionate Nikon user. I have many Nikons and Nikkormats myself and I enjoy using them. In 1965 I was 8 yers old and I did not use a Nikkotmat FS, FT or any other Nikon model. I took up photography in 1971 and even then I saw phoptographers using Nikon F cameras with the unmetered prism finder and a separate hand held light meter. The meters were usually Gossens or Westons or Sekonics. There were Zeiss Contarex and Nikon F series cameras which were made for professionals and which were missing some of the features which other similar models had. This was not done to sell then as "strippers." It was done because these companies tried to guess which features professionals needed and which ones they didn't need as often. Sometimes a manufacturer aims a product at a certain market segment and winds up with another one. Honda clearly aimed the Element at young buyers. One of the odd things about the Element is that it seats only two people in the back seat. The young people who had children bought the CR-V instead. I see mostly people over 50 driving the Element. This isn't an insult to the Element. As long as Honda can sell enough of them to make money, it shouldn't matter who buys them.<br>

Not only do I find the manual indexing of lenses on the FT inconvenient, I find changing the film speed inconvenient on all mechanical Nikkormats before the FT2. The FT2 is my favorite of the mechanical Nikkormats. I can use either pre-AI, AI or AIS lenses with the normal indexing and if a lens is missing the prong I can use stop down metering. The FT3 can use either Pre-AI, AI or AIS lenses but pre-AI lenses require the AI tab to be flipped back and also require stop down metering. I have more pre-AI lenses than AI or AIS ones so I find the FT2 more convenient. I have been told by my repairman that the spring loaded AI system on the FT3 is more reliable over time than the ratchet indexing system of the FTN. <br>

I am not trying to change history by saying than in 1965 there were still some photographers who preferred hand held meters to in-camera meters. In 1965 TTL metering was still pretty new for a 35mm SLR with a focal plane shutter. The Konica Auto Reflex had non-TTL CdS metering as did the Minolta SR-7. Konica did not have such a camera with TTL metering until the Autoreflex T of 1968. That camera combined TTL full aperture metering with shutter priority automation. The Canon FT QL had TTL metering but it was not full aperture metering like the Nikkormat FT had. The Minolta SRT 101 had both full aperture metering and TTL metering and had an automatic indexing system which Nikon did not have until 1977. Pentax stayed with stop down metering until the ES and Spotmatic F models. Based on all of this the Nikkormat FT was notable for having both TTL metering and full aperture metering in 1965 but I still don't think it is a convenient camera to use when it is compared to ones which followed it even by just a few years. I am looking at it not from the perspective of a person buying a new camera in 1965 but from the perspective of a user-collector in 2010.<br>

When I first read Ivor Matanle's book I was a little disappointed that he did not really care for Konica cameras. I still like the book and I still collect and use Konica cameras. The fact that someone else doesn't like a particular camera as much as you do should not cause you to become insulted. What's wrong with different people liking different cameras? If everyone liked the same camera things would be pretty boring. </p>

<p>Hear, here! If everyone liked the same camera we certainly wouldn't get these great debates... </p>

<p>I read and re-read that wordy first message and cannot decipher it.<br />Statements like this are oversimplified nonsense:<br />"Let's face it, the Japanese camera manufacturers in the 1960's saw a niche, and that was people who wanted to look like professional photojournalists, but couldn't tell an f-stop from a bus-stop."<br />The german and american camera businesses failed because they continued to deliver products that had worked in the past. When the competition from Japan introduced new designs the german companies simply re-invented what had sold well in the past. As a consequence new products were hobbled by aging designs with inherent limitations. Rather than asking what consumers wanted they somewhat arrogantly continued to produce designs they assumed would be demanded by consumers.</p>

<p>Well, you have a good point, John. But I would put it even simpler:<br>

Asahi Pentax was heavily inspired by Zeiss Ikon Contax and Ihagee Exakta after WWII and they developed their own cameras to perfection in the 1950s.<br>

And then came the Nikon F ...</p>

<p>Mr. de Waal....<br>

<br />You wrote a nice essay. Three words would have not made your point as well as you did. I may not agree completely with your post but the point is that you wrote quite a thoughtful piece. Good for you. Your post provoked many other well written and/or interesting posts. Please keep on contributing to Photonet. <br>

<br />Mr. Kelly... </p>

<p>"..........today Folks are less able to deal with simple things; that folks long ago had few issues with." <br>

Able or willing to...how very true! </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Peter, the point to be made is not whether one camera company copied the work of another...that happens all the time. In the face of innovative competitors the german and american camera and sport optics industries continued to produce what sold well in the past. They may have originated some of the features used by Pentax/Nikon/Canon, etc., but they were unable or unwilling to do anything with them. And within 15 years the japanese overwhelmed companies that were once industry leaders.</p>

<p>Exactly my point, John: "they developed their own cameras to perfection in the 1950s."<br>

It is not ment as a critique of modern Japanese industrial design. On the contrary!</p>

<p>Sorry to bring up an old thread. Just web searching for some info and came across this thread. Very interesting ideas - but I find the attitudes towards the German SLRs rather curious.<br>

Contrary to popular belief the Germans didn't just sit back and let the Japanese take the SLR market. The Japanese, and especially Pentax have done a really good job of spinning history and claiming this or that innovation - but they were hardly there first on a lot of things.<br>

The Praktina for instance had an internally operated diaphragm mechanism before any of the Japanese SLRs did - it even trickled down to the M42 mount by way of the Praktica FX3 a year or so before Pentax picked it up.<br>

While it took some time for the Germans to adopt some innovations (eg. the instant return mirror), on others they picked them up right away. Built in meters appeared on German SLRs before they appeared on Japanese SLRs. When Pentax introduced the Spotmatic, Praktica was right there with the Prakticamat the next year. Some Japanese companies took a few years longer.<br>

In the west, Wirgin had their Edixa Reflex, which while aimed at the amateur market wasn't behind the times really. It had shutter speeds up to 1/1000, interchangeable finders - and they too jumped on the TTL bandwagon along with everybody else in the mid 60s. They did, rather curiously hang on to the rotating shutter dial right through their last models in the early 70s though (this also never disappeared from the Exakta).<br>

But not every Japanese manufacturer picked up every innovation right away either. And when the move came to electronically controlled cameras (oddly Praktica had been here first too) - a lot of Japanese manufacturers also got squeezed out of the Market. Miranda and Petri come to mind (there's probably more I'm not remembering right off the top of my head).<br>

In Germany <em>and</em> Japan a <em>lot </em>of companies went bust in the 60s and 70s - for a variety of reasons. I think it's easy to jump to the conclusion of technical innovation - and certainly the Japanese companies were innovative - but a variety of factors played a larger role, in my opinion. (inflation in Germany for one played a significant role).</p>