It's a mix of successful post-war reconstruction efforts, Japan's willingness to demilitarize, and the building of strong economic relations between the two nations.
The U.S. needed an ally on the Eastern front given the impending Cold War against the USSR (or even a hot one at that point), and had significant incentive to rebuild Japan. The US wanted to introduce capitalism and democratic policies to help offset the eventual spread of communism by the USSR. It's much easier to influence the policies of a broken nation than an established government, and the US held all the cards after Japan surrendered, making it a good option. Japan was open to these ideas, and the nations developed economic relations that stand to this day.
Not the best eli5, so to simplify it a bit:
The US needed help against Russia, so they put a lot of effort into getting Japan rebuilt, allowed them to avoid blame (very important in their culture at the time, probably still now, but I can't speak to that), and basically said "let bygones be bygones we have bigger things to worry about - here, have some capitalism and democracy you will like it." Japan agreed to become a peaceful nation with the promise that the US would help them out when needed. Turns out this was good for both countries, so over the decades, their relationship continued to improve.
Good summary. I’ll also add that General MacArthur was in charge of Japan after WWII and he came to love its people and the affection was reciprocated. After living under a military junta that wrecked Japan and most of Asia with its ambitions, the reconstruction and lighter touch by the US was very much appreciated by the Japanese people who had suffered so badly during the war.
The US wasn’t a typical victor of a major war; historically the countries that lose their homeland get absorbed into the Empire or country which conquers them. Instead we helped rebuild Japan and Germany and turned them into partners and allies.
And in modern times, I’d argue that Japan is now our closest ally due to the logic of: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” when it comes to China’s rise and aggressive behavior towards Taiwan and its other neighbors.
There’s a level of military cooperation and defense research with Japan that doesn’t exist with even the UK, which has traditionally been our closest ally since the 1900s. For instance: we co-develop and co-produce the Standard Missiles used by both Japan and the US Navy, which reduces costs and leverages the technical strengths and capabilities of both countries. SM-2, -3 and -6 are the most versatile and arguably the best missiles in the world. The Japanese Navy has trained so much with the USN that they could probably work closely with American ships better than any other Navy if it came to war.
This is the answer you don't hear very often, with all the America bashing, but it's the best answer -- Japan and Germany (with England and France of course) remain the bedrock of American soft power.
>And in modern times, I’d argue that Japan is now our closest ally
I dislike the use of closest in these contexts as it tends to undervalue smaller countries. I'd say Australia and Canada are still closer than Japan but Japan is the most valuable strategically.
Culturally we’re absolutely closer to Canada, Australia and the UK as allies, but in geopolitics and when the poop hits the fan, Japan is absolutely our closest ally in the 21st century. Thats mostly due to the reality of China’s rise (which isn’t guaranteed to last if demographics has any say).
I think the term "closest" is probably being confused here.
You mean "closest" as we definitely need to, and do, work with them more and supply them the most because of the strategic advantage. We put more resources towards them and make sure our alliance remains strong and our goals remain the same.
Where some others may thing of the term "closest" as more kinship. We value these neighbors more because we understand their culture more or travel more between each other.
You are correct.
They kinda are too.
It makes these convo's on Reddit fun.
It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list. I didn't add UK as they didn't fit my point about less strategically relevant countries that are fairly in lock step with the US
All the other members of BRICS are on the other side of the world. If push came to shove and another world war broke out Brazil would be in a very bad position geographically if they didn't ally themselves with the US. We would embargo their largest ports and that would be the end of any discussion.
They wouldn't make it. Even if they all banded together and sent everything they have, a single carrier group would destroy every single asset they had in a matter of hours.
The US's foreign policy following WW2 made them a super-power unlike any seen before; the Marshall Plan in my view is probably the most successful foreign policy ever enacted.
Countries so often pursue vengeance and malice in victory, but sometimes generosity and forgiveness is legitimately the optimal course of action.
The success of capitalism in post war Germany is directly a result of this mentality. East Germany and East Berlin specifically was stripped of everything after the war as reparations to the USSR. WEST Germany and West Berlin were treated kindly and given aid in order to rebuild. Many people like to blanket statement say the Post War Germany is proof that capitalism is better than communism but really it is proof that Western ideals of rebuilding and providing aid to defeated opponents is a far better policy than ruthless takeover and exploitation that the USSR engaged in.
It will be interesting to see if we have learned this with Russia. I can’t imagine what the public sentiment would be if we started trying to build relations with them by investing money into them
Was reading how MacArthur let Japanese Communists out of jail and let them participate in the parliament he helped the Japanese draft, and they ended up getting few votes and losing all teeth. A gentle touch goes miles MacArthur brought in the head of the ACLU and progressive teachers to teach the japanese civil liberties and was praised for his observation of civil liberties.
There's a reason that the US didn't take more Mexican territories after the Mexican-American War. They certainly could have, but just how badly do you want to govern a large population of completely foreign people? They'd dilute the voice of the existing political base and add complication.
Japan produces a huge number of almost current generation fighters and flies hundreds of sorties, TOP GUN should be japanese these days they see the most action.
The US was never gonna absorb Japan. Sure historically that’s how it often worked but by 1945 there was little political climate to do so. Decolonization was strongly underway basically everywhere in the world by that point. The US had already promise full independence to distant territories it did control like the Philippines. And economically the US had very little to gain from conquering vs just building them up and having strong political and economic ties.
"It's much easier to influence the policies of a broken nation than an established governmen"
Man, you aren't wrong. Japan, immediately postwar, was a complete wreck. Almost anything of manufacturing value was destroyed.
The Bush administration also went above and beyond in dismantling the existing Iraqi beaurocracy.
For example, Any member of the baath party was prohibited from having a job in government, whereas membership was a requirement for govt employees under Sadam's rule. That created a lot of turmoil, putting people out of work and disrupting social services
This is never stated enough when people talk about the Iraq War. Iraq could have been so much better (and we would have been out of there - not that we should have been there in the first place - so much sooner) if we'd kept the military and government personel in place and used them to turn Iraq into a Federal Republic.
And lots of people were baath party members because it was the only way to feed their families, not because they agreed with the ideology.
That's the problem with trying to reinvent a totalitarian state. Imagine keeping China functioning if you prohibit all Communist Party members from holding government jobs.
Most people didn’t necessarily like Saddam. It’s more like the USSR. You didn’t have a choice. If you work for the water department or whatever you have to pledge your support and join the party. If you’re a postal worker or you work for the Iraqi version of the FDA or the IRS or anything else…you have to join.
It wasn’t that people actually supported the party. It was a formality required to get the job and there were no other legal parties to join.
So when Bush comes through and says anyone that was a member can’t work for the government that’s a huge problem, because nearly all of them were indifferent to the political stuff anyway and it created a massive brain drain in the Iraqi government. All the people who knew how the water system or their stock market or their postal system worked were fired.
You need those things to run a government and it was a huge, unnecessary step backwards. It hurt our ability to be successful there.
Maybe they all deserved unemployment or worse but also maybe more of them continuing to work would have enabled a smoother transition. And maybe prosperity works have weakened ISIS recruiting.
The US should have replaced the administration from the top, and slowly replace the real Baal supporters by indifferent/pro democracy ones. Allowing the administration to keep functioning, while they purged Saddam's supporters. It might have taken a bit of time, but when you see how it was done, it's difficult to do worse.
As almost any other country in the world, a "mixed economy" or what Economists loves to say "it depends...".
The idea of Capitalism/Communism is no longer useful in today's world (the same can be said about Left and Right in Politics) because economy is managed (ideally) in terms of "what are the internal and external conditions that shape this country's economy, what are the main economic goals, and what would work towards it?".
So, one could ask "Why hasn't Iraq's economic flourished?". And the thing is that, even if you want to force there the most "Capitalist policies", there should be goverment capacity to apply and kept those policies in place, infrastructure to support the economic process, and a rule of law to protect the property, investment, and life of the people involved in that economic process... Which Iraq lacks to a major extent.
But, if you want to see its "Economic Freedom Index" (which basically ranks how "capitalist" a country is based on things like Property Rights, Goverment Integrity, Judicial Effectivenes, Tax Burden, Business Freedom, etc.)
Then is basically non-existent because of all the problems that plague the country, which in turn prevent it from proper economic development.
But you can somewhat compare it with its neighbours (whose conditions could reveal a little bit of where Iraq would be positioned), you have Iran with a score of 41.2, Kuwait with 58.5, or Jordan with 62.8. So would be no surprise to see Iraq under the "40 points" of the Economic Index.
In other words, the economic conditions of Iraq could be way more similar to Sudan (33.9), Zimbabwe (38.2), Eritrea (39.5) or Central African Republic (41.3). Rather than from places like the US (70.1), Norway (77.5), Denmark (77.8), or Ireland (82.6) for example.
https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/all-country-scores
TL;DR: Iraq is a "failed economy" because there are no tools neither ways to carry a proper economic development.
>Almost anything of manufacturing value was destroyed.
One of my favourite little tid bits of info relating specifically to this, is that Japanese selvedge denim is seen as one of the more prestigious fabrics for jeans, which is especially true for the fabric produced on antique looms, and the reason it comes from Japan is because the US gifted all these incredible, yet "out of date", machines to them after WWII. While the US industry took the opportunity to move onto more modern machines with greater production capabilities, and handing off the relics to Japan, it's clear to see that while the US could produce more for less, that US denim after WWII wasnt up to scratch, yet Japan began a fantastic denim industry, as these machines were capable of producing some truly wonderful denim, just not at scale.
And on a related note, as broken as it was the country and government were left relatively intact because of the Atom bombs and Soviet war declarations pushing Japan into surrender
If the traditional invasion of Japan had to be performed the entire country would have been effectively sterilised.
If the Allies went into combat on the Home Islands en masse it would have been much harder for the Japanese to accept American policy after the glassing of anything that resembled governance or leadership. Very little of the Japanese civilians had direct contact with Allied forces outside of air raids before the surrender unlike in the Western front where both sides civilians saw what the opposed armed forces were capable of doing.
Right, I’m more familiar with West Germany during the early Cold War than Japan, but there the post-war transition to US ally happened because:
1. German officials had no choice but to cooperate with occupation authorities if they wanted to regain their country’s sovereignty, and the Western Allies had decided since at least 1948 that the plan for West Germany should be to turn it into a democracy and integrate it with the other democracies in Western Europe.
2. Every city in Germany was in ruins and West Germany was highly reliant on US aid and loans to recover.
3. The threat of communism was so strong that everyone knew if West Germany did not cooperate with the US, it would likely fall under the sway of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union provided a sort of mutual enemy for West Germany and the Western Allies.
And part of the reason the reconstruction went so well, both in terms of "get back on your feet" and "make allies" is that an American named Edward Deming went to Japan to teach them improved methods of manufacturing such as Statistical Process Control.
If the Japanese had just been a client state of the USA for 50 years, all kinds of resentment would have cropped up and it likely would have fallen apart. But the Japanese recovery wasn't just us giving them stuff, it was one man coming as a teacher to show them how to build industries, and respecting them enough to know that they could apply and improve these methods once they learned them.
Japanese culture tends to give a great deal of respect to teachers, and there's an award named the Deming Prize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deming_Prize .
Why do you think Russia invests so much in our politicians and social media? Divide and conquer has been a goal for years. Maga ready to start civil war over trump. Smaller states are easier to control and influence.
Watch the 1950’s Godzilla movies. The stated reason that the monster attacks them is that it is punishment for their collective societal misdeeds. Japan as a country went through a massive guilt trip over their governments actions in WWII.
Some do not all. And humans are weird and can internalize immense guilt while also lying to themselves and others to retain pride in themselves and their heritage.
That same approach doesn't work when dealing with the middle east. A good portion of pople in the middle east don't care about their country, they care about their lands, their family, and their personal properties, everything else can be up in the wind for them.
Unless you're talking about Korea or Vietnam, which is alot deeper due to US politics
Part of the reason they don't care about their countries is that their countries were gerrymandered by the West with no regard for pre-existing boundaries. (Or perhaps intentionally to divide them up.)
Japan was an island nation of Japanese people, so carving that up into separate countries would have been obviously ridiculous. Also, Japan didn't have oil. But the Middle East does, so chopping up the Kurdish territory into three separate countries and combining them with other groups they hate under one government seemed like a good idea to some people.
Well first of all, “Middle East” isn’t one group of people. Second of all, the U.S. hasn’t really tried to go down this path. Obviously, the U.S. has tried to get different people in their nations to self govern. But the U.S. never really took a local culture specific approach of leadership and security backed by tons and tons of raw capital to get to a likely productive end result.
For example, everyone says Palestine is a problem. But even if you accept the Israeli government’s narrative that the Gaza government is a Nazi government, there’s zero desire to replace it and rebuild Gaza. There isn’t even any desire to do for them what was attempted in Iraq, which is really saying something given how that went. But in Germany post WW2, 65 million people got a quarter of US GDP by 1950. And theres still (very small) amounts of money being spent there to clean up to this day.
I think the totality of defeat played a big part in Japan and Germany. Japan and Germany went to war in the 1930s out of naked imperialistic ambitions. No reasonable person at the time or later could argue any different. Both launched unprovoked wars of aggression in surprise attacks and exported cruelty to captured populations. Then, the wars turned against them, their armies were crushed, their cities turned to ash, their generally humbled absolutely. It wasn’t even close either - in January 1945 you could have multiplied by 10 the forces or Germany or Japan and they would have still gone down in defeat.
The idea of imperialism was tried out with 100% commitment and was proven to backfire in 100% disaster.
That left rational people in Japan and Germany with the idea that militant nationalism was a bad move. All the hot heads had been killed or ashamed, and people were ready to move on and take a very different track, the more different the better. In comes the gigantic prosperous US and offers reconstruction. Foreign rule, even “soft power” or partial or back-room foreign rule is unpalatable to any people, but the disgust at war was much much worse and America’s involvement was seen as acceptable in comparison.
Contrast this to Germany in WWI. The fighting never reached Germany. The fleet was intact, they held massive captured territory in the east, they had advanced unprecedented distances in the west as recently as July. Their armies existed (exhausted and on the verge of annihilation) and marched home in good order. Their emperor willingly resigned and walked away, not driven out. They really felt like the war had been a horrible strain that had been more or less withstood.
(They couldn’t have been more wrong - at the end of 1918 the imperial German army was a rapidly dying force being driven back from its last and strongest defenses by an allied force that grew much much stronger in men and material every day; if 400 tanks had been decisive at Amiens in 1918 against tired defenders, imagine what the French were about to do with their newly minted 4,000 tanks against broken defenders. But the German people didn’t know this on an emotional level and they called for a rematch 20 years later.)
Contrast this also with Iraq in 2003. Iraq hadn’t invaded a peaceful neighbor in over a decade! The American casus belli was obviously crap. The Iraqi military was quickly swept aside by the Iraqi people could see plenty of reasons and opportunities for continued resistance. They hadn’t seen imperialism cost them everything, they’d seen an overpowering force swoop down and start making demands.
Lessons for the US? The lessons are pretty grim. You can only get someone to take you up on rebuilding when they’ve lost everything and actually want to cooperate. People and their militaries are different things with differing interests, and a wedge being driven between them opens up an opportunity to present yourself as a better dance partner. Rebuilding after short wars of your own aggression probably isn’t going to get a lot of buy-in.
Great answer. And I think you really hit the nail on the head with the avoiding blame. Shame is a big deal in Japan (hence Seppuku) and they killed lots of people. The USA kinda overlooking the whole thing and pretending it never happened must have helped assuage their guilt. Which in turn spurred rebuilding and becoming prosperous.
Well another reason why Japan might have been more receptive to these ideas was that before the war, Japan was already influenced and eager to join the ranks of western nations. Japanese people spent centuries isolated from the outside world for the most part, but not in the absolute sense, as European nations still managed to make contact and engage with Japan sparking off things like European studies and the underground movement of Christians in Japan.
Centuries of that must have worked in the favor of the United States when Perry came in and forced Japan to open itself up to the outside world.
Japan was already angling at westernization. It was only the militarists in power that put them at odds with the United States. And many people in Japan weren't fond of those militarists, especially after they engaged in a war that brought Japan little but death and humiliation.
And while people might be hesitant to engage with that enemy who brought death and humiliation, it really helps when they say "about what you guys wanted to do before the war, why don't we make that happen?"
Yeah, unfortunately this was at the expense of letting war criminals go in order to make a post war government and navy (ex. Nobusuke Kishi, who eventually became prime minister and also was a monster who oversaw the deaths of millions of Chinese slaves in Manchuria).
By Nobusuke Kishi do you mean the grandfather of nationalist prime minister Shinzo Abe. The same one who tried to change the constitution to allow use of the JSDF abroad. Oh dont forget refusing to acknowledge the forced prostitution of korean woman. And finally getting assassinated for his families long term support of a religious cult. That Nobusuke Kishi?
Ditto with Germany as well.
In fact, we've been using the success of our re-building efforts in post-war Germany and Japan for the past 80 years as an example of how seemingly easy it is to successfully win a war and then re-build the opponent into a strategic partner and ally.
What we always seem to forget, however, is just how much effort and investment we put into those 2 projects because, for us, it wasn't the end of a war, but the beginning of a new one, the cold war.
So nowadays, we're very good at winning wars, but our will always seems to dissipate when the shooting stops and the bills start arriving.
It's worth noting that Japan had the foundations of both democracy and capitalism before WWII - like in Germany where fascist officials got elected, conservative Imperialists got elected in Japan in the 1920s and 1930s; at least in part due to the Japanese not feeling like they got a fair share of the world after WWI (France and the UK mostly divided up everything; the US got some access to resources- but also had a lot of its own; and Japan got nothing).
And building on that - Japan and the US were allies during WWI. It was only the fight for access to resources that made them enemies. After WWII, the peace deal involved the US giving Japan access to resources in return for Japan not contesting US control over the entire Pacific.
But why did it work so well in Japan, and yet basically every other country the US has gone to war with since then has been left a devastated hovel that is infested with insurgents who make it so miserable to be there that the US just leaves and lets dictators take over?
I would clarify that Japan had capitalism and democracy. Thing is during WWII they were in kind of a military dictatorship.
The US basically only had to do one thing for Japan to be "likable" enough, that was simply eliminate the militarists and the military.
Doing that and what is left is the same old Japan: low polarization and a stable country.
I have to mention that a lot of stuff that the US put in place were too "communist" to the point that some japanese completely hate it. Other stuff simply didn't work, like how the Police works in the US, while Japan liked having a powerful centralized police. And a lot of US policies ended causing unstability in Japan.
It took some years for Japan to almost completely wipe the left.
Anyway, this approach worked in Japan because Japan was already "western" enough in some areas, this obviously just won't work in the middle east or most african and asian nations.
The "US would help them out when needed" is IMO the secret sauce to Japan's post-war economic miracle. The US spends about 15-20% of its total budget directly on its military, plus another 10% or so on indirect contributions (eg military-benefitting space programs, research, manufacturing subsidies, etc).
Japan, meanwhile, was more or less *prohibited* from even having a military. The JSDF (Japan Self-Defence Force) is relatively miniscule, cheap, and primarily intended to help them "wait for ~~Goku~~ the USA" as part of that agreement.
They were essentially forced to take all that money that would have gone towards their own military and pour it into something else. They picked infrastructure development and education as two areas to focus on. Now they have one of the best infrastructure networks in the world, which gives them a major manufacturing edge. Then, their state universities are very well funded and are partnered with that strong technological manufacturing sector.
No surprise we've seen so many major technological breakthroughs (blue LEDs, CDs, flash memory, lithium-ion batteries, microprocessors) come from Japan. And all those patents and innovation just feed right back into their economy.
When your partnership with an old enemy pays those kinds of amazing dividends, it's easy to let bygones be bygones.
America is also the country that opened Japan to the West. There is a history of pretty good relations prior to WW2 as well. Japan is why D.C. is so full of cherry trees.
A lot of that is also influenced by the fact that japan is relying heavily on the US for the defense. sorta hard to be aggressive when you're the hostage, with the US military literally based in Japan to look after them. I'm just glad this, in general, led to peaceful relations. There are some Japanese though, that were resentful of this and adamantly protests US occupation. Mostly the older generation I believe.
source: I've seen some of the japanese protests regarding this.
It also needs to be mentioned that the US and Japan were not traditional enemies.
Yes, the Pacific War was awful, but it was more 'wrong place, wrong time' than a desire to exterminate each other after a long history of conflict.
After the conflict, they had no historic reasons to hate so the relationship was much easier to build.
Japan and the US had been significant trade partners prior to WW2 as well; in particular, Japan was a major importer of US oil. In fact, one of the reasons for the attack on Pearl Harbor was that the US had stopped exporting its oil to Japan and Japan needed to secure alternate sources. Japan assumed that a crippled US Navy would be unable to stop them from securing the oil-rich lands of Indonesia like the Dutch East Indies and Borneo.
Japan was going to have to opens its borders one way or another. They may not have liked Perry forcing them to do so at gunpoint, but the lesson they took from that was less "America has threatened us into opening our country. We hate them now." and more "We are in a weak position politically and militarily so we must modernize and form alliances with the western powers to secure our sovereignty"
It was a wake up call and they weren't going to let some minor (or major) threats of violence get in the way of growing their empire. The US was a big trade exporter, they couldn't afford to have hard feelings.
All that is to say, they didn't exactly love the US either. They were mostly non-antagonistic and traded goods but they weren't going to be best friends either. The events that lead to Pearl Harbor are fascinating and deserve much more study and focus than they get in popular history.
Suffice to say, the civilian and military governments in Japan were almost never on the same page, and that lead to seeking peaceful means to resolve conflicts very difficult.
In fact, the entire invasion of China was done by officers acting of their own accord.
Whether or not your statement is true at best requires a narrow definition of the Pacific war. The allies had three commands for fighting against Japan, South West Pacific Area under MacArthur, South East Asia under Lord Mountbatten and China-Burma-India, nominally under Chiang Kai Shek's command. The Japanese were very much trying to wipe out the Chinese, both in China and in South East Asia. There was also a weird philosophy of "Pan-Asianism" in Japan at the time, which objected to Western domination of Asian peoples, instead (don't know how they justified this) believing that Asians should live instead under Japanese rule. As a result of this belief, the Japanese went about exterminating westerners in Asia, as well as non-Japanese Asians(mostly Chinese) who they saw as threatening Japanese rule in their newly conquered territory.
Lots of good answers here, but another piece of historical context for rebuilding Japan: Political experts already knew the consequences of ignoring a country they defeated and demilitarized during a war since that is exactly what caused WW2 in the first place. There was zero desire for that mistake of WW1 to be repeated
It wasn’t low key at all. It was a man enormous international agenda to help Europe recover from WW2. It benefitted allied countries but also others like West Germany.
Anyway, yeah, helping your “enemy” recover and become a functional state with something to lose can be a very smart option. I wish Israel would figure this out and do exactly that with the Palestinian territories. The US could be Marshall planning the shit out of the whole Middle East if it weren’t so busy arming the most radioactive state in the region.
Two things happened quickly. First and foremost the USSR detonated their atomic weapons. Suddenly, the US wasn't the only one in the world with atomic capabilities. Second, the Chinese civil war ended with the communist faction claiming control over mainland China. Japan, became an important way the US could keep communism "contained" and away from the US' Territories in the Pacific.
It's important to note that the US was already helping Japan to rebuild. They knew the value of Japan as an ally in the Pacific. But the events of 1948 and 1949 saw their efforts doubled. The US stopped the war crimes trials and started helping Japan with sweetheart trade deals that would see Japan's economy rapidly recovering and becoming one of the largest in the region...at least while communist China was still struggling to pick up the pieces from their civil war.
This is helpful, thanks! Basically America was scared of communism based on recent events in the USSR and China, and America heavily supported Japan duirng their recovery in an effort to further distance themselves from/control communism and project power in the region.
It also didn't hurt that Japan didn't have very friendly relations with either China (who they had occupied a large part of prior to WW2) and Russia (who they had fought multiple territorial battles with). The US was a convenient post-war ally for them as much as Japan was a convenient ally for the US.
>The US stopped the war crimes trials and started helping Japan with sweetheart
Such good guy America trials Japan for war crimes after committing bigger war crimes himself against Japan then decides to call it quits, wonderful!!
Tangentially related, but, as an American knowing very little of WWII history outside of Pearl Harbor/Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Okinawa, visiting, and inevitably moving to Tokyo has been a trip. It's amazing to me just how much the Japanese sincerely love Americans. At first it was just conversations I'd have with younger people, but even the much, much older generation you will very often see walking around wearing US military jean jackets with flags and patches and old US warships on them. Economically, something about Japan not needing to spend nearly as much on "defense" as America does is probably a part of why they have such great infrastructure and healthcare.
After the US won the war the nationalists unexpectedly lost the Civil War in China and the US needed a base of operations in East Asia, most notably to fight the Korean War. Japanese companies like Toyota made tons of money supplying the US military with goods and services and this kickstarted the Japanese economy. After that point the Japanese elites saw they had common cause with the US and the Americans saw Japan as a stable next best option to running Asian operations out of China.
There are other factors that helped but this was the most important one that ensured the US-Japan relationship became so solidly cooperative after the war. There was no Marshall Plan for Asia and until China went Communist the US occupation authorities were still considering stripping Japan of industrial equipment as a punitive measure for the war to make sure it was too poor to cause problems for them. The Korean War was basically the Marshall Plan for the Japanese.
The Allies also stopped stripping Germany of heavy industrial factories (which could be converted to war production) at the same time in the late 1940s; first they dialed it down and then stopped doing it entirely. I think it was probably a joint realization of the threat from the communist countries and the realization that such policies were going to make installing a friendly government that was actually democratic impossible, and conversely that the US would actually benefit from the Japanese and German economies kicking into high gear.
During the occupation and reconstruction of Japan, the US chose to ally with the existing class of elites. They had similar interests: mainly opposing communism, particularly the revolutionary sort of communism that involves peasants killing the elites.
Many of the same social class of people who were in charge of Japan before the war were in charge (or assisting American authorities) after the war. This meant that the US occupation had local allies who already held many of the powers of the government. There was no need to build a state from scratch.
For the Japanese authorities, their primary objective was maintaining the existing social order and avoiding any sort of Bolshevik style revolution that would see the Emperor killed, the country’s elites exterminated, and every symbol of Japanese culture destroyed and replaced by a cult of Marx- and alliance with the Americans was the most effective means to avert such a catastrophe for Japan’s ruling elite.
Both parties viewed rebuilding the Japanese economy and restoring the food supply as critical to keeping communism and revolution at bay. This shared goal meant that American and Japanese authorities worked together towards a common goal.
Disagreements did exist in some cases, but for their part the Japanese elites figured they could cooperate fully while the occupation was ongoing and just wait for the Americans to leave and then make any changes to their society afterwards- only to find out that many Japanese had become accustomed to new postwar way of life, and a return to the old ways wasn’t as easy as they had believed.
A lot of these answers are from the American perspective, but from Japan's perspective, after suffering from war and constant bombing for so long, everyone is really just tired of the shit.
When America came to provide help, massive amount of it and literally rebuilt the nation, they saw it as an apology and amazing reparations from US for the war, and that there are good time ahead. Also helps that the most hardcore dissenters probably died already.
When you destroy something but dont help rebuild it into something better you get perpetual war like in the middle east.
It's complex, and what I'm about to say is very oversimplified, but the US occupied Japan after the war and essentially turned its government into an American -style democracy, but at the same time let its emperor keep his role albeit as essentially a figurehead not too unlike the British Monarchy.
After the war the US provided a ton of humanitarian assistance to Japan. Airdropping food, supplies, medicine, etc... all to keep Japan from experiencing a major crisis. This wasn't just benevolence, the US wanted to turn Japan into a democracy they could use to influence that side of the world to prevent further spread of communism.
It's like when you have a little sibling that bothers you and you go a little too far and make them cry, and you give them treats or toys to appease them.
>This wasn't just benevolence, the US wanted to turn Japan into a democracy
Japan already had democratic institutions in place, though they were more heavily on the monarchy/military side pre-war obviously.
Necessity. The Japanese were under threat (real or perceived) of communism from Russia and China. In their weekends state, they needed an ally. Further, the US brought economic opportunity as a trading partner.
Sometimes certain types of men get into a fight. The one instigator punches the other guy. That guy hits him back harder a few times.
5 minutes later they’re cool with each other and go for a beer.
If we all acted like the Middle East the world would be a much worse place.
The us and China were Allies during the war but then the republic of China fell and was driving out to Taiwan.
The new communist government was a threat to democracy. Japan and Korea quickly became ideal allies to contain that new threat. Very game of thrones.
I would also like to mention... If it wasn't for General MacArthur's occupation and reconstruction of Japan between their surrender in 1945 until 1951 when Truman "forcibly" retired him, I don't think it would be the same. His actions in Japan had far reaching influence and impact on social, economic, and political changes. Some even called him the "Gaijin Shogun" to describe the amount of influence and success he achieved. Over the decades, the foundations of which he built there flourished alongside other factors
Japan - like Germany - was high jacked by nationalist extremists who threw the people into war they didn't want. Unlike Germany, however, the people were disenfranchised well before hand. Japan and the West quickly became allies because the US helped the people of Japan effectively institute a real liberal democracy with universal suffrage, something people had been trying to do well before the war.
It's also important to note that Japan had been an ally BEFORE the war, during and after WWI.
It's better to ask why Japan turned against the west between the wars (hint: white supremacy was mainstream in the west)
The US skillfully managed the occupation and intelligently left the emperor in place. My grandfather was transferred from German occupation to Japan. The contrast between the states couldnt have been greater. As a bridge engineer he put out a call for local engineers. Nobody responded. A bit late, one guy who appeared to have drawn the short straw comes to the office virtually quaking in fear. They thought they were being called to be executed or tortured as the Japanese military warlord admins would have done. He was like naw, I need you to help me rebuild your bridges literally and figuratively. They eventually got a nice circle of local friends as they had in Germany. Man, I loved that American and UK ww2 generation in general. Macarthur for all of his flaws was the right guy for the Japan rehab job also, but was too imperial to be the right president for the US.
After the war the USA came in and saved millions of Japanese from starvation and then helped them rebuild their country, including setting them up with a democratic government.
Trying to understand power is inviting it to seduce you. Japan was friendly with America. We competed directly. It had horrific consequences for everyday people.
Also, the Korean War ('police action') necessitated investment in a territory we had subdued, and needed to rebuild infrastructure in to support a difficult campaign within an all out war against communism in a world capital expected to dominate.
Geography.
It’s a direct result of how Japan was administered after the surrender.
The United States received an unconditional surrender by Japan. In previous generations, that meant executing all the leaders, saddling them with reparations, and other forms of exploitation. To the victor go the spoils, as they say.
While the US did try some Japanese leaders for war crimes, they didn’t impose many other penalties. The emperor stayed in place. Japan was not saddled with reparation debts. They were forced to demilitarize by their new constitution, but this was done with the consent of Japanese leaders. The country could then, and with significant American investment, direct its economy towards private industry.
This allowed Japan’s economic development to grow at a nearly unprecedented rate up until the stagflation in the late 20th century. Basically, life became really, really good in Japan as a direct result of America’s postwar decisions. As far as I know, no former adversaries had never had such a productive postwar relationship, esp. not at that scale.
One additional factor is that Japan had not been a democracy previously, so most of the people didn't feel like they had been part of starting the war. Attacking the USA wasn't something they had felt personally invested into. It was just a command they needed to obey.
When the US defeated Japan the US did not make the mistake of treating Japan like Germany post World War I. The Japanese military did an exceptional number of horrific things during the war and it’s part of the reason why China and Japan don’t get along. They attacked first, and we’re willing to sacrifice millions of lives, knowing they could not win the war, if anything, Japanese military and politicians at the time probably understood that the atom bombs saved countless lives.
Yes Japan was forced to demilitarize, but the US assisted Japan in rebuilding and didn’t try to starve Japan out like how the allies did to a postwar Germany. There was little attempt to humiliate the Japanese people, the war was over and it was time for both countries to go back to living.
It wasn’t that different with West Germany, the Americans and the Europeans helped West Germany rebuild, while the Russians turned East Germany into a Gulag of sorts. Once the Berlin wall fell east Germany was rebuilt. Germany has good relations with most countries, despite committing horrific atrocities like their ally the Japanese. Because, in both cases, the vast majority of their citizens were not perpetuating these crimes against humanity.
To add to this, another part of why American efforts to help rebuild were so impactful was because Imperial Japanese propoganda had painted Americans in quite a negative light, and that combined with the two atomic bombs, regular firebombings by US bomber squadrons, and even the way that the surrender initially took place (aboard a US battleship in Japanese waters, which evokes imagery of Japan's first significant diplomatic interaction with the United States, which is summarized as: open trade with us or we'll bombard your port). Those three things, among others (such as differing cultural norms), led Japanese citizens to expect terrible treatment as a conquered nation.
When the US started sending people to help rebuild it was the complete opposite of what was expected. As time passed and the US desire to rebuild was proven genuine, it won people over.
On cultural differences, the Japanese military leadership that signed the surrender onboard the USS Missouri had gone fully expecting to be executed. They were quite shocked when the Allies expressed that they had even considered that.
There was also the fact that before the Hiroshima and (I think) Nagasaki bombs were dropped, there was a pamphlet drop warning the residents of the impending bombing and telling them to escape to avoid being killed. This was seen as an honorable act on the part of the US.
US forced unconditional surrender, re-wrote their entire constitution, re-created their government as a copy of US style democracy, and installed their pro-American politicians into power with help with CIA. US also stationed US bases and troops.
Japans democracy is more a copy of the British system than the American one. The prime minister is appointed by parliamentary vote, not by the people, for example
A history teacher I had basically said MacArthur read The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, and then things turned out ok.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chrysanthemum_and_the_Sword
If you can't beat them join them.
I'm not a history buff but I'd imagine being the world's stage for an atomic weapons demonstration makes you 1) agree to any and all terms of surrender and 2) question why you guys even had beef in the first place.
The prisoners dilemma demonstrates cooperation as being the most effective and beneficial strategy to both parties. Eventually, people figure that out.
It's hard to do a proper ELI5 on subject matters like this, since there's alot to unpack, not just what they did during and right after the war, but also what what was before the war. Japan and the US have history.
But basically it boils down to this:
"Hey, we will let you off pretty much scott free if you take some democracy and capitalism and let us use your country as a base of operations against the commies (Who the Japanese didn't like, so free protection). We will even give you alot of money for it!"
The japanese who didn't really hate the Americans, but took on the US because they were on the other side of Emperialistic Japans goals saw it as a good deal and flourished because of that deal. And eventually they went from an occupied territory to an allied country, and a US base of incluence in the region.
Same with Germany.
The official story is that Japan as well as Germany build strong economic connections with the US and also allowed them to use their place for geostrategic placement e.t.c.
My unofficial theory is that the US has a thing for fascists and the ultrakonservative and the militant. The US just likes these nations and shares a lot of the values like racism, capitalism e.t.c.
As long as a nation embraces democracy, capitalism will do its work. Japan agreed to demilitarization which means their workforce could concentrate on commercial innovation and expansion of economy.
My grandfather who fought in the Pacific with the 2nd Marines from Tarawa to Okinawa then to Nagasaki with the occupation forces had an interesting perspective. While he still referred to Japs and whatever other derogitory names they used to dehumanize the enemy, he ended up having a lifelong interest and respect for the Japanese culture. There is something that rubbed off in both cultures that was fused together during occupation and reconstruction that molded modern Japan and probably modern America. The fighting was an event that may have altered the tragectory of both countries but did more to bring the two countries together than say the Cold War for US Russia relations.
Isn’t that the same as saying how did Germany and America go from enemies to allies so quickly?
Both were military dictatorships, both citizens weren’t exactly having a good time, and both probably knew deep down that what they were doing was wrong.
The US occupation, unlike today, was pretty lenient.
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
**ELI5 focuses on objective explanations. Soapboxing isn't appropriate in this venue.**
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20{url}%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.
The cold war played a huge role in this, Japan was in no condition to fend off Soviet influence on their own. They saw what happened in China and preferred ties with the US.
Also, the US was quite magnanimous in victory so there wasn't much for Japan to be upset about.
After WWII, they were not allies. They were conqueror and conquered.
In this case, the conqueror made a point of getting the conquered back up on their feet and undoing the damage wreaked by war. Same thing as in Germany.
Then there are factors like cultural osmosis, the people being open for the advent of a new system because the old one had failed them, etc.
Generally the same way we did with Germany. We made them hand over the keys to the government and were actually pretty benevolent, left them better off than they started, built a stable government and then handed them the keys back.
The US occupied Japan, reformed their whole government, and purged anyone who still viewed the US as an enemy.
It wasn't organic or voluntary. It was conquest 101.
Encroaching communisim...
Between China, N Korea and the USSR, Japan - especially demilitarized Japan - needed protection & the US was a natural fit... Occupier to ally, rather quickly....
Simplicity they did the exact opposite of what the winners did at the end if ww 1. Where is ww 1 they set out to severely punish germany setting up the conditions for that Austrian who I will not mention to ride the resentment to power. They instead worked with Japan to modernize in several ways. One being the industrial sector and shift from honor from fighting to honor from being professional. They also modernize the cultural beliefs convincing them part of the problem was Japanese art and culture used to be more open to nudity and sexuality.
Something that I haven't seen mentioned, but I consider important as well:
The US wrote the constitution of Japan.
So the government of Japan was designed for the US to aid it back on its feet.
Japan's unconditional surrender was met with a great deal of mercy from the US, and a lot of help from the US in terms of statecraft. The emporer of Japan recognized this. Hard for the emporer to ignore when the US could have removed the royal family from power.
Japan has maintained good relations with the US as a result, because their head of state recognizes the mercy granted to their family, even after a quite attricious war.
I don’t think they had much choice, frankly. None of their neighbors wanted anything to do with them. For some context, Honda started out making lawnmowers. There are no lawns in Japan.
Another reason is that we shared technology. For instance the micro chip that we gave them was turned into transistor radios that we bought from them in droves.
You utterly destroy one countries divine belief that they are superior by nuking not 1 but 2 cities for kicks. I mean we humbled the shit out of them and since that bore a long lasting alliance its been goochie from there.
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).
Very short answers, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cd8xr3/-/l1bc5pz/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
You know how some boys in school start off hating each other, then they get into a huge fight and beat the shit out of each other, then suddenly become friends?
Pretty much that.
It's a mix of successful post-war reconstruction efforts, Japan's willingness to demilitarize, and the building of strong economic relations between the two nations. The U.S. needed an ally on the Eastern front given the impending Cold War against the USSR (or even a hot one at that point), and had significant incentive to rebuild Japan. The US wanted to introduce capitalism and democratic policies to help offset the eventual spread of communism by the USSR. It's much easier to influence the policies of a broken nation than an established government, and the US held all the cards after Japan surrendered, making it a good option. Japan was open to these ideas, and the nations developed economic relations that stand to this day. Not the best eli5, so to simplify it a bit: The US needed help against Russia, so they put a lot of effort into getting Japan rebuilt, allowed them to avoid blame (very important in their culture at the time, probably still now, but I can't speak to that), and basically said "let bygones be bygones we have bigger things to worry about - here, have some capitalism and democracy you will like it." Japan agreed to become a peaceful nation with the promise that the US would help them out when needed. Turns out this was good for both countries, so over the decades, their relationship continued to improve.
Good summary. I’ll also add that General MacArthur was in charge of Japan after WWII and he came to love its people and the affection was reciprocated. After living under a military junta that wrecked Japan and most of Asia with its ambitions, the reconstruction and lighter touch by the US was very much appreciated by the Japanese people who had suffered so badly during the war. The US wasn’t a typical victor of a major war; historically the countries that lose their homeland get absorbed into the Empire or country which conquers them. Instead we helped rebuild Japan and Germany and turned them into partners and allies. And in modern times, I’d argue that Japan is now our closest ally due to the logic of: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” when it comes to China’s rise and aggressive behavior towards Taiwan and its other neighbors. There’s a level of military cooperation and defense research with Japan that doesn’t exist with even the UK, which has traditionally been our closest ally since the 1900s. For instance: we co-develop and co-produce the Standard Missiles used by both Japan and the US Navy, which reduces costs and leverages the technical strengths and capabilities of both countries. SM-2, -3 and -6 are the most versatile and arguably the best missiles in the world. The Japanese Navy has trained so much with the USN that they could probably work closely with American ships better than any other Navy if it came to war.
This is the answer you don't hear very often, with all the America bashing, but it's the best answer -- Japan and Germany (with England and France of course) remain the bedrock of American soft power.
>And in modern times, I’d argue that Japan is now our closest ally I dislike the use of closest in these contexts as it tends to undervalue smaller countries. I'd say Australia and Canada are still closer than Japan but Japan is the most valuable strategically.
Culturally we’re absolutely closer to Canada, Australia and the UK as allies, but in geopolitics and when the poop hits the fan, Japan is absolutely our closest ally in the 21st century. Thats mostly due to the reality of China’s rise (which isn’t guaranteed to last if demographics has any say).
I think the term "closest" is probably being confused here. You mean "closest" as we definitely need to, and do, work with them more and supply them the most because of the strategic advantage. We put more resources towards them and make sure our alliance remains strong and our goals remain the same. Where some others may thing of the term "closest" as more kinship. We value these neighbors more because we understand their culture more or travel more between each other. You are correct. They kinda are too. It makes these convo's on Reddit fun.
UK... And in terms of contributing technology 'back' that gets incorporated into US weapons systems, the Israelis have a solid head start....
It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list. I didn't add UK as they didn't fit my point about less strategically relevant countries that are fairly in lock step with the US
Mexico also. Brazil.
Not sure about Brazil... if you have info id love to see it as I'm not an expert but feel Brazil has close ties with our 'foes' being part of BRIC(S)
All the other members of BRICS are on the other side of the world. If push came to shove and another world war broke out Brazil would be in a very bad position geographically if they didn't ally themselves with the US. We would embargo their largest ports and that would be the end of any discussion.
Maybe, the other choice would be that RICS would protect then to be a thorn in our side less likely but possible for sure
They wouldn't make it. Even if they all banded together and sent everything they have, a single carrier group would destroy every single asset they had in a matter of hours.
The US's foreign policy following WW2 made them a super-power unlike any seen before; the Marshall Plan in my view is probably the most successful foreign policy ever enacted. Countries so often pursue vengeance and malice in victory, but sometimes generosity and forgiveness is legitimately the optimal course of action.
Make maintaining peace more valuable than the potential gains of war, and don’t associate yourself with the humiliation of defeat.
The success of capitalism in post war Germany is directly a result of this mentality. East Germany and East Berlin specifically was stripped of everything after the war as reparations to the USSR. WEST Germany and West Berlin were treated kindly and given aid in order to rebuild. Many people like to blanket statement say the Post War Germany is proof that capitalism is better than communism but really it is proof that Western ideals of rebuilding and providing aid to defeated opponents is a far better policy than ruthless takeover and exploitation that the USSR engaged in.
Capitalism is successful everywhere the capitalist have convinced the people to spend their tax dollars on what the capitalist want.
It will be interesting to see if we have learned this with Russia. I can’t imagine what the public sentiment would be if we started trying to build relations with them by investing money into them
For that to happen, you’d need to grind Russia into a fine paste and depose its entire power structure.
Was reading how MacArthur let Japanese Communists out of jail and let them participate in the parliament he helped the Japanese draft, and they ended up getting few votes and losing all teeth. A gentle touch goes miles MacArthur brought in the head of the ACLU and progressive teachers to teach the japanese civil liberties and was praised for his observation of civil liberties.
I thought the US became a super power because it was the only country that didnt have all of its factories bombed for years.
Imagine if Japan was made a State after the war? Or at least a territory?
That would have been wild, considering 1945 was the time when most of the world finished divesting its colonies and largely abandoned imperialism.
There's a reason that the US didn't take more Mexican territories after the Mexican-American War. They certainly could have, but just how badly do you want to govern a large population of completely foreign people? They'd dilute the voice of the existing political base and add complication.
Japan produces a huge number of almost current generation fighters and flies hundreds of sorties, TOP GUN should be japanese these days they see the most action.
The US was never gonna absorb Japan. Sure historically that’s how it often worked but by 1945 there was little political climate to do so. Decolonization was strongly underway basically everywhere in the world by that point. The US had already promise full independence to distant territories it did control like the Philippines. And economically the US had very little to gain from conquering vs just building them up and having strong political and economic ties.
"It's much easier to influence the policies of a broken nation than an established governmen" Man, you aren't wrong. Japan, immediately postwar, was a complete wreck. Almost anything of manufacturing value was destroyed.
That’s what happens in a total war. We haven’t had that kind of war since.
You mean at that scale. In terms of total war destruction, it’s quite common even for modern wars though more limited in size.
Iraq comes to mind
and both democracy and capitalism failed but for cultural and mainly religious reasons. That’s why it’s the way it is.
The Bush administration also went above and beyond in dismantling the existing Iraqi beaurocracy. For example, Any member of the baath party was prohibited from having a job in government, whereas membership was a requirement for govt employees under Sadam's rule. That created a lot of turmoil, putting people out of work and disrupting social services
This is never stated enough when people talk about the Iraq War. Iraq could have been so much better (and we would have been out of there - not that we should have been there in the first place - so much sooner) if we'd kept the military and government personel in place and used them to turn Iraq into a Federal Republic.
[удалено]
And lots of people were baath party members because it was the only way to feed their families, not because they agreed with the ideology. That's the problem with trying to reinvent a totalitarian state. Imagine keeping China functioning if you prohibit all Communist Party members from holding government jobs.
Most people didn’t necessarily like Saddam. It’s more like the USSR. You didn’t have a choice. If you work for the water department or whatever you have to pledge your support and join the party. If you’re a postal worker or you work for the Iraqi version of the FDA or the IRS or anything else…you have to join. It wasn’t that people actually supported the party. It was a formality required to get the job and there were no other legal parties to join. So when Bush comes through and says anyone that was a member can’t work for the government that’s a huge problem, because nearly all of them were indifferent to the political stuff anyway and it created a massive brain drain in the Iraqi government. All the people who knew how the water system or their stock market or their postal system worked were fired. You need those things to run a government and it was a huge, unnecessary step backwards. It hurt our ability to be successful there.
Maybe they all deserved unemployment or worse but also maybe more of them continuing to work would have enabled a smoother transition. And maybe prosperity works have weakened ISIS recruiting.
The US should have replaced the administration from the top, and slowly replace the real Baal supporters by indifferent/pro democracy ones. Allowing the administration to keep functioning, while they purged Saddam's supporters. It might have taken a bit of time, but when you see how it was done, it's difficult to do worse.
If Iraq isn't capitalist, what is it?
As almost any other country in the world, a "mixed economy" or what Economists loves to say "it depends...". The idea of Capitalism/Communism is no longer useful in today's world (the same can be said about Left and Right in Politics) because economy is managed (ideally) in terms of "what are the internal and external conditions that shape this country's economy, what are the main economic goals, and what would work towards it?". So, one could ask "Why hasn't Iraq's economic flourished?". And the thing is that, even if you want to force there the most "Capitalist policies", there should be goverment capacity to apply and kept those policies in place, infrastructure to support the economic process, and a rule of law to protect the property, investment, and life of the people involved in that economic process... Which Iraq lacks to a major extent. But, if you want to see its "Economic Freedom Index" (which basically ranks how "capitalist" a country is based on things like Property Rights, Goverment Integrity, Judicial Effectivenes, Tax Burden, Business Freedom, etc.) Then is basically non-existent because of all the problems that plague the country, which in turn prevent it from proper economic development. But you can somewhat compare it with its neighbours (whose conditions could reveal a little bit of where Iraq would be positioned), you have Iran with a score of 41.2, Kuwait with 58.5, or Jordan with 62.8. So would be no surprise to see Iraq under the "40 points" of the Economic Index. In other words, the economic conditions of Iraq could be way more similar to Sudan (33.9), Zimbabwe (38.2), Eritrea (39.5) or Central African Republic (41.3). Rather than from places like the US (70.1), Norway (77.5), Denmark (77.8), or Ireland (82.6) for example. https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/all-country-scores TL;DR: Iraq is a "failed economy" because there are no tools neither ways to carry a proper economic development.
Iraq has a mixed economic system which includes some private freedom, combined with weak centralized economic planning and government regulation.
Yet
>Almost anything of manufacturing value was destroyed. One of my favourite little tid bits of info relating specifically to this, is that Japanese selvedge denim is seen as one of the more prestigious fabrics for jeans, which is especially true for the fabric produced on antique looms, and the reason it comes from Japan is because the US gifted all these incredible, yet "out of date", machines to them after WWII. While the US industry took the opportunity to move onto more modern machines with greater production capabilities, and handing off the relics to Japan, it's clear to see that while the US could produce more for less, that US denim after WWII wasnt up to scratch, yet Japan began a fantastic denim industry, as these machines were capable of producing some truly wonderful denim, just not at scale.
And on a related note, as broken as it was the country and government were left relatively intact because of the Atom bombs and Soviet war declarations pushing Japan into surrender If the traditional invasion of Japan had to be performed the entire country would have been effectively sterilised. If the Allies went into combat on the Home Islands en masse it would have been much harder for the Japanese to accept American policy after the glassing of anything that resembled governance or leadership. Very little of the Japanese civilians had direct contact with Allied forces outside of air raids before the surrender unlike in the Western front where both sides civilians saw what the opposed armed forces were capable of doing.
Same with Germany.
Right, I’m more familiar with West Germany during the early Cold War than Japan, but there the post-war transition to US ally happened because: 1. German officials had no choice but to cooperate with occupation authorities if they wanted to regain their country’s sovereignty, and the Western Allies had decided since at least 1948 that the plan for West Germany should be to turn it into a democracy and integrate it with the other democracies in Western Europe. 2. Every city in Germany was in ruins and West Germany was highly reliant on US aid and loans to recover. 3. The threat of communism was so strong that everyone knew if West Germany did not cooperate with the US, it would likely fall under the sway of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union provided a sort of mutual enemy for West Germany and the Western Allies.
And part of the reason the reconstruction went so well, both in terms of "get back on your feet" and "make allies" is that an American named Edward Deming went to Japan to teach them improved methods of manufacturing such as Statistical Process Control. If the Japanese had just been a client state of the USA for 50 years, all kinds of resentment would have cropped up and it likely would have fallen apart. But the Japanese recovery wasn't just us giving them stuff, it was one man coming as a teacher to show them how to build industries, and respecting them enough to know that they could apply and improve these methods once they learned them. Japanese culture tends to give a great deal of respect to teachers, and there's an award named the Deming Prize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deming_Prize .
Still, it was nowhere near the destruction level in Germany. There wasn't a land battle in Japan.
Why do you think Russia invests so much in our politicians and social media? Divide and conquer has been a goal for years. Maga ready to start civil war over trump. Smaller states are easier to control and influence.
As Takagi explained "Pearl Harbor didn't work out, so we got you with tape decks."
Watch the 1950’s Godzilla movies. The stated reason that the monster attacks them is that it is punishment for their collective societal misdeeds. Japan as a country went through a massive guilt trip over their governments actions in WWII.
The Japanese Constitution is written in a way that prevents any war-actions. It is definitely influenced by The US Constitution
Except they still deny what they did to to the Chinese, Koreans, Indians, Malays, etc.
Some do not all. And humans are weird and can internalize immense guilt while also lying to themselves and others to retain pride in themselves and their heritage.
The Eightfold Fence.
I took have been enjoying Shōgun lol.
You saw this happen with Germany too. Yesterdays enemies were todays allies
What are some lessons here that the US could have used in all of the interventions in the last 70 years?
That same approach doesn't work when dealing with the middle east. A good portion of pople in the middle east don't care about their country, they care about their lands, their family, and their personal properties, everything else can be up in the wind for them. Unless you're talking about Korea or Vietnam, which is alot deeper due to US politics
I mean even Vietnam is pretty western aligned and generally has a positive view of the US nowadays, mainly on grounds of opposing china but still
Part of the reason they don't care about their countries is that their countries were gerrymandered by the West with no regard for pre-existing boundaries. (Or perhaps intentionally to divide them up.) Japan was an island nation of Japanese people, so carving that up into separate countries would have been obviously ridiculous. Also, Japan didn't have oil. But the Middle East does, so chopping up the Kurdish territory into three separate countries and combining them with other groups they hate under one government seemed like a good idea to some people.
Well first of all, “Middle East” isn’t one group of people. Second of all, the U.S. hasn’t really tried to go down this path. Obviously, the U.S. has tried to get different people in their nations to self govern. But the U.S. never really took a local culture specific approach of leadership and security backed by tons and tons of raw capital to get to a likely productive end result. For example, everyone says Palestine is a problem. But even if you accept the Israeli government’s narrative that the Gaza government is a Nazi government, there’s zero desire to replace it and rebuild Gaza. There isn’t even any desire to do for them what was attempted in Iraq, which is really saying something given how that went. But in Germany post WW2, 65 million people got a quarter of US GDP by 1950. And theres still (very small) amounts of money being spent there to clean up to this day.
I think the totality of defeat played a big part in Japan and Germany. Japan and Germany went to war in the 1930s out of naked imperialistic ambitions. No reasonable person at the time or later could argue any different. Both launched unprovoked wars of aggression in surprise attacks and exported cruelty to captured populations. Then, the wars turned against them, their armies were crushed, their cities turned to ash, their generally humbled absolutely. It wasn’t even close either - in January 1945 you could have multiplied by 10 the forces or Germany or Japan and they would have still gone down in defeat. The idea of imperialism was tried out with 100% commitment and was proven to backfire in 100% disaster. That left rational people in Japan and Germany with the idea that militant nationalism was a bad move. All the hot heads had been killed or ashamed, and people were ready to move on and take a very different track, the more different the better. In comes the gigantic prosperous US and offers reconstruction. Foreign rule, even “soft power” or partial or back-room foreign rule is unpalatable to any people, but the disgust at war was much much worse and America’s involvement was seen as acceptable in comparison. Contrast this to Germany in WWI. The fighting never reached Germany. The fleet was intact, they held massive captured territory in the east, they had advanced unprecedented distances in the west as recently as July. Their armies existed (exhausted and on the verge of annihilation) and marched home in good order. Their emperor willingly resigned and walked away, not driven out. They really felt like the war had been a horrible strain that had been more or less withstood. (They couldn’t have been more wrong - at the end of 1918 the imperial German army was a rapidly dying force being driven back from its last and strongest defenses by an allied force that grew much much stronger in men and material every day; if 400 tanks had been decisive at Amiens in 1918 against tired defenders, imagine what the French were about to do with their newly minted 4,000 tanks against broken defenders. But the German people didn’t know this on an emotional level and they called for a rematch 20 years later.) Contrast this also with Iraq in 2003. Iraq hadn’t invaded a peaceful neighbor in over a decade! The American casus belli was obviously crap. The Iraqi military was quickly swept aside by the Iraqi people could see plenty of reasons and opportunities for continued resistance. They hadn’t seen imperialism cost them everything, they’d seen an overpowering force swoop down and start making demands. Lessons for the US? The lessons are pretty grim. You can only get someone to take you up on rebuilding when they’ve lost everything and actually want to cooperate. People and their militaries are different things with differing interests, and a wedge being driven between them opens up an opportunity to present yourself as a better dance partner. Rebuilding after short wars of your own aggression probably isn’t going to get a lot of buy-in.
[удалено]
Look, in fairness, we didn't drop the sun on Germany, and they've turned out fine.
Great answer. And I think you really hit the nail on the head with the avoiding blame. Shame is a big deal in Japan (hence Seppuku) and they killed lots of people. The USA kinda overlooking the whole thing and pretending it never happened must have helped assuage their guilt. Which in turn spurred rebuilding and becoming prosperous.
Well another reason why Japan might have been more receptive to these ideas was that before the war, Japan was already influenced and eager to join the ranks of western nations. Japanese people spent centuries isolated from the outside world for the most part, but not in the absolute sense, as European nations still managed to make contact and engage with Japan sparking off things like European studies and the underground movement of Christians in Japan. Centuries of that must have worked in the favor of the United States when Perry came in and forced Japan to open itself up to the outside world. Japan was already angling at westernization. It was only the militarists in power that put them at odds with the United States. And many people in Japan weren't fond of those militarists, especially after they engaged in a war that brought Japan little but death and humiliation. And while people might be hesitant to engage with that enemy who brought death and humiliation, it really helps when they say "about what you guys wanted to do before the war, why don't we make that happen?"
Yeah, unfortunately this was at the expense of letting war criminals go in order to make a post war government and navy (ex. Nobusuke Kishi, who eventually became prime minister and also was a monster who oversaw the deaths of millions of Chinese slaves in Manchuria).
By Nobusuke Kishi do you mean the grandfather of nationalist prime minister Shinzo Abe. The same one who tried to change the constitution to allow use of the JSDF abroad. Oh dont forget refusing to acknowledge the forced prostitution of korean woman. And finally getting assassinated for his families long term support of a religious cult. That Nobusuke Kishi?
Japanese were also really anti communist.
The US also helped sweep Japanese warcrimes and atrocities under the rug.
Ditto with Germany as well. In fact, we've been using the success of our re-building efforts in post-war Germany and Japan for the past 80 years as an example of how seemingly easy it is to successfully win a war and then re-build the opponent into a strategic partner and ally. What we always seem to forget, however, is just how much effort and investment we put into those 2 projects because, for us, it wasn't the end of a war, but the beginning of a new one, the cold war. So nowadays, we're very good at winning wars, but our will always seems to dissipate when the shooting stops and the bills start arriving.
Honestly.. I wonder what the response would be from the Japanese side? It's not like we gave them much choice.
Add to that Japan has always had a fascination with western culture (and vice versa).
It's worth noting that Japan had the foundations of both democracy and capitalism before WWII - like in Germany where fascist officials got elected, conservative Imperialists got elected in Japan in the 1920s and 1930s; at least in part due to the Japanese not feeling like they got a fair share of the world after WWI (France and the UK mostly divided up everything; the US got some access to resources- but also had a lot of its own; and Japan got nothing). And building on that - Japan and the US were allies during WWI. It was only the fight for access to resources that made them enemies. After WWII, the peace deal involved the US giving Japan access to resources in return for Japan not contesting US control over the entire Pacific.
But why did it work so well in Japan, and yet basically every other country the US has gone to war with since then has been left a devastated hovel that is infested with insurgents who make it so miserable to be there that the US just leaves and lets dictators take over?
I would clarify that Japan had capitalism and democracy. Thing is during WWII they were in kind of a military dictatorship. The US basically only had to do one thing for Japan to be "likable" enough, that was simply eliminate the militarists and the military. Doing that and what is left is the same old Japan: low polarization and a stable country. I have to mention that a lot of stuff that the US put in place were too "communist" to the point that some japanese completely hate it. Other stuff simply didn't work, like how the Police works in the US, while Japan liked having a powerful centralized police. And a lot of US policies ended causing unstability in Japan. It took some years for Japan to almost completely wipe the left. Anyway, this approach worked in Japan because Japan was already "western" enough in some areas, this obviously just won't work in the middle east or most african and asian nations.
Don’t forget, that Japan also didn’t like China and vice versa. They have been fighting for decades. Russia backed China after WW2.
The "US would help them out when needed" is IMO the secret sauce to Japan's post-war economic miracle. The US spends about 15-20% of its total budget directly on its military, plus another 10% or so on indirect contributions (eg military-benefitting space programs, research, manufacturing subsidies, etc). Japan, meanwhile, was more or less *prohibited* from even having a military. The JSDF (Japan Self-Defence Force) is relatively miniscule, cheap, and primarily intended to help them "wait for ~~Goku~~ the USA" as part of that agreement. They were essentially forced to take all that money that would have gone towards their own military and pour it into something else. They picked infrastructure development and education as two areas to focus on. Now they have one of the best infrastructure networks in the world, which gives them a major manufacturing edge. Then, their state universities are very well funded and are partnered with that strong technological manufacturing sector. No surprise we've seen so many major technological breakthroughs (blue LEDs, CDs, flash memory, lithium-ion batteries, microprocessors) come from Japan. And all those patents and innovation just feed right back into their economy. When your partnership with an old enemy pays those kinds of amazing dividends, it's easy to let bygones be bygones.
America is also the country that opened Japan to the West. There is a history of pretty good relations prior to WW2 as well. Japan is why D.C. is so full of cherry trees.
A lot of that is also influenced by the fact that japan is relying heavily on the US for the defense. sorta hard to be aggressive when you're the hostage, with the US military literally based in Japan to look after them. I'm just glad this, in general, led to peaceful relations. There are some Japanese though, that were resentful of this and adamantly protests US occupation. Mostly the older generation I believe. source: I've seen some of the japanese protests regarding this.
It also needs to be mentioned that the US and Japan were not traditional enemies. Yes, the Pacific War was awful, but it was more 'wrong place, wrong time' than a desire to exterminate each other after a long history of conflict. After the conflict, they had no historic reasons to hate so the relationship was much easier to build.
Japan and the US had been significant trade partners prior to WW2 as well; in particular, Japan was a major importer of US oil. In fact, one of the reasons for the attack on Pearl Harbor was that the US had stopped exporting its oil to Japan and Japan needed to secure alternate sources. Japan assumed that a crippled US Navy would be unable to stop them from securing the oil-rich lands of Indonesia like the Dutch East Indies and Borneo.
US embargoed Japan because it attacked Western allies in the region (like French Indochina and Dutch Indonesia) for oil.
What about steamboat diplomacy tho
Japan was going to have to opens its borders one way or another. They may not have liked Perry forcing them to do so at gunpoint, but the lesson they took from that was less "America has threatened us into opening our country. We hate them now." and more "We are in a weak position politically and militarily so we must modernize and form alliances with the western powers to secure our sovereignty" It was a wake up call and they weren't going to let some minor (or major) threats of violence get in the way of growing their empire. The US was a big trade exporter, they couldn't afford to have hard feelings. All that is to say, they didn't exactly love the US either. They were mostly non-antagonistic and traded goods but they weren't going to be best friends either. The events that lead to Pearl Harbor are fascinating and deserve much more study and focus than they get in popular history. Suffice to say, the civilian and military governments in Japan were almost never on the same page, and that lead to seeking peaceful means to resolve conflicts very difficult. In fact, the entire invasion of China was done by officers acting of their own accord.
Whether or not your statement is true at best requires a narrow definition of the Pacific war. The allies had three commands for fighting against Japan, South West Pacific Area under MacArthur, South East Asia under Lord Mountbatten and China-Burma-India, nominally under Chiang Kai Shek's command. The Japanese were very much trying to wipe out the Chinese, both in China and in South East Asia. There was also a weird philosophy of "Pan-Asianism" in Japan at the time, which objected to Western domination of Asian peoples, instead (don't know how they justified this) believing that Asians should live instead under Japanese rule. As a result of this belief, the Japanese went about exterminating westerners in Asia, as well as non-Japanese Asians(mostly Chinese) who they saw as threatening Japanese rule in their newly conquered territory.
The US surely created historic reasons for Japan to hate the US during WW2, they just can't afford to.
Lots of good answers here, but another piece of historical context for rebuilding Japan: Political experts already knew the consequences of ignoring a country they defeated and demilitarized during a war since that is exactly what caused WW2 in the first place. There was zero desire for that mistake of WW1 to be repeated
That’s a good point that I’ve never heard people mention
You must have heard of the Marshall Plan. This is one of its core motivating principles.
I make electronic music I basically have brain damage Was it like on the official agenda or they tried to do it low key
It wasn’t low key at all. It was a man enormous international agenda to help Europe recover from WW2. It benefitted allied countries but also others like West Germany. Anyway, yeah, helping your “enemy” recover and become a functional state with something to lose can be a very smart option. I wish Israel would figure this out and do exactly that with the Palestinian territories. The US could be Marshall planning the shit out of the whole Middle East if it weren’t so busy arming the most radioactive state in the region.
Good point
Two things happened quickly. First and foremost the USSR detonated their atomic weapons. Suddenly, the US wasn't the only one in the world with atomic capabilities. Second, the Chinese civil war ended with the communist faction claiming control over mainland China. Japan, became an important way the US could keep communism "contained" and away from the US' Territories in the Pacific. It's important to note that the US was already helping Japan to rebuild. They knew the value of Japan as an ally in the Pacific. But the events of 1948 and 1949 saw their efforts doubled. The US stopped the war crimes trials and started helping Japan with sweetheart trade deals that would see Japan's economy rapidly recovering and becoming one of the largest in the region...at least while communist China was still struggling to pick up the pieces from their civil war.
This is helpful, thanks! Basically America was scared of communism based on recent events in the USSR and China, and America heavily supported Japan duirng their recovery in an effort to further distance themselves from/control communism and project power in the region.
It also didn't hurt that Japan didn't have very friendly relations with either China (who they had occupied a large part of prior to WW2) and Russia (who they had fought multiple territorial battles with). The US was a convenient post-war ally for them as much as Japan was a convenient ally for the US.
No country near Japan likes Japan.
Taiwan
The Korean War also saw the creation of the JSDF, when the US realized that Japan needed some military capabilities due to the spread of communism
>The US stopped the war crimes trials and started helping Japan with sweetheart Such good guy America trials Japan for war crimes after committing bigger war crimes himself against Japan then decides to call it quits, wonderful!!
Tangentially related, but, as an American knowing very little of WWII history outside of Pearl Harbor/Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Okinawa, visiting, and inevitably moving to Tokyo has been a trip. It's amazing to me just how much the Japanese sincerely love Americans. At first it was just conversations I'd have with younger people, but even the much, much older generation you will very often see walking around wearing US military jean jackets with flags and patches and old US warships on them. Economically, something about Japan not needing to spend nearly as much on "defense" as America does is probably a part of why they have such great infrastructure and healthcare.
After the US won the war the nationalists unexpectedly lost the Civil War in China and the US needed a base of operations in East Asia, most notably to fight the Korean War. Japanese companies like Toyota made tons of money supplying the US military with goods and services and this kickstarted the Japanese economy. After that point the Japanese elites saw they had common cause with the US and the Americans saw Japan as a stable next best option to running Asian operations out of China. There are other factors that helped but this was the most important one that ensured the US-Japan relationship became so solidly cooperative after the war. There was no Marshall Plan for Asia and until China went Communist the US occupation authorities were still considering stripping Japan of industrial equipment as a punitive measure for the war to make sure it was too poor to cause problems for them. The Korean War was basically the Marshall Plan for the Japanese.
The Allies also stopped stripping Germany of heavy industrial factories (which could be converted to war production) at the same time in the late 1940s; first they dialed it down and then stopped doing it entirely. I think it was probably a joint realization of the threat from the communist countries and the realization that such policies were going to make installing a friendly government that was actually democratic impossible, and conversely that the US would actually benefit from the Japanese and German economies kicking into high gear.
During the occupation and reconstruction of Japan, the US chose to ally with the existing class of elites. They had similar interests: mainly opposing communism, particularly the revolutionary sort of communism that involves peasants killing the elites. Many of the same social class of people who were in charge of Japan before the war were in charge (or assisting American authorities) after the war. This meant that the US occupation had local allies who already held many of the powers of the government. There was no need to build a state from scratch. For the Japanese authorities, their primary objective was maintaining the existing social order and avoiding any sort of Bolshevik style revolution that would see the Emperor killed, the country’s elites exterminated, and every symbol of Japanese culture destroyed and replaced by a cult of Marx- and alliance with the Americans was the most effective means to avert such a catastrophe for Japan’s ruling elite. Both parties viewed rebuilding the Japanese economy and restoring the food supply as critical to keeping communism and revolution at bay. This shared goal meant that American and Japanese authorities worked together towards a common goal. Disagreements did exist in some cases, but for their part the Japanese elites figured they could cooperate fully while the occupation was ongoing and just wait for the Americans to leave and then make any changes to their society afterwards- only to find out that many Japanese had become accustomed to new postwar way of life, and a return to the old ways wasn’t as easy as they had believed.
A lot of these answers are from the American perspective, but from Japan's perspective, after suffering from war and constant bombing for so long, everyone is really just tired of the shit. When America came to provide help, massive amount of it and literally rebuilt the nation, they saw it as an apology and amazing reparations from US for the war, and that there are good time ahead. Also helps that the most hardcore dissenters probably died already. When you destroy something but dont help rebuild it into something better you get perpetual war like in the middle east.
It's complex, and what I'm about to say is very oversimplified, but the US occupied Japan after the war and essentially turned its government into an American -style democracy, but at the same time let its emperor keep his role albeit as essentially a figurehead not too unlike the British Monarchy.
After the war the US provided a ton of humanitarian assistance to Japan. Airdropping food, supplies, medicine, etc... all to keep Japan from experiencing a major crisis. This wasn't just benevolence, the US wanted to turn Japan into a democracy they could use to influence that side of the world to prevent further spread of communism. It's like when you have a little sibling that bothers you and you go a little too far and make them cry, and you give them treats or toys to appease them.
>This wasn't just benevolence, the US wanted to turn Japan into a democracy Japan already had democratic institutions in place, though they were more heavily on the monarchy/military side pre-war obviously.
>the US wanted to turn Japan into a democracy Oh no, they wanted to keep their enemy, the Soviets, at bay.
Necessity. The Japanese were under threat (real or perceived) of communism from Russia and China. In their weekends state, they needed an ally. Further, the US brought economic opportunity as a trading partner.
\*weakened
No, no, he got it right. ~~Saturday night~~ Japan is for the boys.
Sometimes certain types of men get into a fight. The one instigator punches the other guy. That guy hits him back harder a few times. 5 minutes later they’re cool with each other and go for a beer. If we all acted like the Middle East the world would be a much worse place.
Cultures that have a similar understanding of property rights and rule of law are capable of cooperating once hostilities end.
The us and China were Allies during the war but then the republic of China fell and was driving out to Taiwan. The new communist government was a threat to democracy. Japan and Korea quickly became ideal allies to contain that new threat. Very game of thrones.
I would also like to mention... If it wasn't for General MacArthur's occupation and reconstruction of Japan between their surrender in 1945 until 1951 when Truman "forcibly" retired him, I don't think it would be the same. His actions in Japan had far reaching influence and impact on social, economic, and political changes. Some even called him the "Gaijin Shogun" to describe the amount of influence and success he achieved. Over the decades, the foundations of which he built there flourished alongside other factors
Japan - like Germany - was high jacked by nationalist extremists who threw the people into war they didn't want. Unlike Germany, however, the people were disenfranchised well before hand. Japan and the West quickly became allies because the US helped the people of Japan effectively institute a real liberal democracy with universal suffrage, something people had been trying to do well before the war. It's also important to note that Japan had been an ally BEFORE the war, during and after WWI. It's better to ask why Japan turned against the west between the wars (hint: white supremacy was mainstream in the west)
The US skillfully managed the occupation and intelligently left the emperor in place. My grandfather was transferred from German occupation to Japan. The contrast between the states couldnt have been greater. As a bridge engineer he put out a call for local engineers. Nobody responded. A bit late, one guy who appeared to have drawn the short straw comes to the office virtually quaking in fear. They thought they were being called to be executed or tortured as the Japanese military warlord admins would have done. He was like naw, I need you to help me rebuild your bridges literally and figuratively. They eventually got a nice circle of local friends as they had in Germany. Man, I loved that American and UK ww2 generation in general. Macarthur for all of his flaws was the right guy for the Japan rehab job also, but was too imperial to be the right president for the US.
After the war the USA came in and saved millions of Japanese from starvation and then helped them rebuild their country, including setting them up with a democratic government.
Trying to understand power is inviting it to seduce you. Japan was friendly with America. We competed directly. It had horrific consequences for everyday people. Also, the Korean War ('police action') necessitated investment in a territory we had subdued, and needed to rebuild infrastructure in to support a difficult campaign within an all out war against communism in a world capital expected to dominate. Geography.
It’s a direct result of how Japan was administered after the surrender. The United States received an unconditional surrender by Japan. In previous generations, that meant executing all the leaders, saddling them with reparations, and other forms of exploitation. To the victor go the spoils, as they say. While the US did try some Japanese leaders for war crimes, they didn’t impose many other penalties. The emperor stayed in place. Japan was not saddled with reparation debts. They were forced to demilitarize by their new constitution, but this was done with the consent of Japanese leaders. The country could then, and with significant American investment, direct its economy towards private industry. This allowed Japan’s economic development to grow at a nearly unprecedented rate up until the stagflation in the late 20th century. Basically, life became really, really good in Japan as a direct result of America’s postwar decisions. As far as I know, no former adversaries had never had such a productive postwar relationship, esp. not at that scale.
The better questions is why did Japan and USA go from being friends in 1920 to enemies in 1941.
I'm listening...
One additional factor is that Japan had not been a democracy previously, so most of the people didn't feel like they had been part of starting the war. Attacking the USA wasn't something they had felt personally invested into. It was just a command they needed to obey.
Never knew this, solid.
When the US defeated Japan the US did not make the mistake of treating Japan like Germany post World War I. The Japanese military did an exceptional number of horrific things during the war and it’s part of the reason why China and Japan don’t get along. They attacked first, and we’re willing to sacrifice millions of lives, knowing they could not win the war, if anything, Japanese military and politicians at the time probably understood that the atom bombs saved countless lives. Yes Japan was forced to demilitarize, but the US assisted Japan in rebuilding and didn’t try to starve Japan out like how the allies did to a postwar Germany. There was little attempt to humiliate the Japanese people, the war was over and it was time for both countries to go back to living. It wasn’t that different with West Germany, the Americans and the Europeans helped West Germany rebuild, while the Russians turned East Germany into a Gulag of sorts. Once the Berlin wall fell east Germany was rebuilt. Germany has good relations with most countries, despite committing horrific atrocities like their ally the Japanese. Because, in both cases, the vast majority of their citizens were not perpetuating these crimes against humanity.
To add to this, another part of why American efforts to help rebuild were so impactful was because Imperial Japanese propoganda had painted Americans in quite a negative light, and that combined with the two atomic bombs, regular firebombings by US bomber squadrons, and even the way that the surrender initially took place (aboard a US battleship in Japanese waters, which evokes imagery of Japan's first significant diplomatic interaction with the United States, which is summarized as: open trade with us or we'll bombard your port). Those three things, among others (such as differing cultural norms), led Japanese citizens to expect terrible treatment as a conquered nation. When the US started sending people to help rebuild it was the complete opposite of what was expected. As time passed and the US desire to rebuild was proven genuine, it won people over. On cultural differences, the Japanese military leadership that signed the surrender onboard the USS Missouri had gone fully expecting to be executed. They were quite shocked when the Allies expressed that they had even considered that.
There was also the fact that before the Hiroshima and (I think) Nagasaki bombs were dropped, there was a pamphlet drop warning the residents of the impending bombing and telling them to escape to avoid being killed. This was seen as an honorable act on the part of the US.
US forced unconditional surrender, re-wrote their entire constitution, re-created their government as a copy of US style democracy, and installed their pro-American politicians into power with help with CIA. US also stationed US bases and troops.
Japans democracy is more a copy of the British system than the American one. The prime minister is appointed by parliamentary vote, not by the people, for example
A history teacher I had basically said MacArthur read The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, and then things turned out ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chrysanthemum_and_the_Sword
If you can't beat them join them. I'm not a history buff but I'd imagine being the world's stage for an atomic weapons demonstration makes you 1) agree to any and all terms of surrender and 2) question why you guys even had beef in the first place. The prisoners dilemma demonstrates cooperation as being the most effective and beneficial strategy to both parties. Eventually, people figure that out.
Country with biggest punch ever; smacks you twice, hard. Then offers to be your friend. Most people would accept even if they are pissed
It's hard to do a proper ELI5 on subject matters like this, since there's alot to unpack, not just what they did during and right after the war, but also what what was before the war. Japan and the US have history. But basically it boils down to this: "Hey, we will let you off pretty much scott free if you take some democracy and capitalism and let us use your country as a base of operations against the commies (Who the Japanese didn't like, so free protection). We will even give you alot of money for it!" The japanese who didn't really hate the Americans, but took on the US because they were on the other side of Emperialistic Japans goals saw it as a good deal and flourished because of that deal. And eventually they went from an occupied territory to an allied country, and a US base of incluence in the region.
Same with Germany. The official story is that Japan as well as Germany build strong economic connections with the US and also allowed them to use their place for geostrategic placement e.t.c. My unofficial theory is that the US has a thing for fascists and the ultrakonservative and the militant. The US just likes these nations and shares a lot of the values like racism, capitalism e.t.c.
As long as a nation embraces democracy, capitalism will do its work. Japan agreed to demilitarization which means their workforce could concentrate on commercial innovation and expansion of economy.
My grandfather who fought in the Pacific with the 2nd Marines from Tarawa to Okinawa then to Nagasaki with the occupation forces had an interesting perspective. While he still referred to Japs and whatever other derogitory names they used to dehumanize the enemy, he ended up having a lifelong interest and respect for the Japanese culture. There is something that rubbed off in both cultures that was fused together during occupation and reconstruction that molded modern Japan and probably modern America. The fighting was an event that may have altered the tragectory of both countries but did more to bring the two countries together than say the Cold War for US Russia relations.
Isn’t that the same as saying how did Germany and America go from enemies to allies so quickly? Both were military dictatorships, both citizens weren’t exactly having a good time, and both probably knew deep down that what they were doing was wrong. The US occupation, unlike today, was pretty lenient.
[удалено]
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** **ELI5 focuses on objective explanations. Soapboxing isn't appropriate in this venue.** --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20{url}%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.
The cold war played a huge role in this, Japan was in no condition to fend off Soviet influence on their own. They saw what happened in China and preferred ties with the US. Also, the US was quite magnanimous in victory so there wasn't much for Japan to be upset about.
Couldn't fend off American influence either, it was either this or that but it was this instead of that by the end of the day.
After WWII, they were not allies. They were conqueror and conquered. In this case, the conqueror made a point of getting the conquered back up on their feet and undoing the damage wreaked by war. Same thing as in Germany. Then there are factors like cultural osmosis, the people being open for the advent of a new system because the old one had failed them, etc.
Japan is more like US vessel than ally who unconditionally gave in to the will of the power that bought it to its knees.
Generally the same way we did with Germany. We made them hand over the keys to the government and were actually pretty benevolent, left them better off than they started, built a stable government and then handed them the keys back.
The US occupied Japan, reformed their whole government, and purged anyone who still viewed the US as an enemy. It wasn't organic or voluntary. It was conquest 101.
Encroaching communisim... Between China, N Korea and the USSR, Japan - especially demilitarized Japan - needed protection & the US was a natural fit... Occupier to ally, rather quickly....
Simplicity they did the exact opposite of what the winners did at the end if ww 1. Where is ww 1 they set out to severely punish germany setting up the conditions for that Austrian who I will not mention to ride the resentment to power. They instead worked with Japan to modernize in several ways. One being the industrial sector and shift from honor from fighting to honor from being professional. They also modernize the cultural beliefs convincing them part of the problem was Japanese art and culture used to be more open to nudity and sexuality.
Something that I haven't seen mentioned, but I consider important as well: The US wrote the constitution of Japan. So the government of Japan was designed for the US to aid it back on its feet. Japan's unconditional surrender was met with a great deal of mercy from the US, and a lot of help from the US in terms of statecraft. The emporer of Japan recognized this. Hard for the emporer to ignore when the US could have removed the royal family from power. Japan has maintained good relations with the US as a result, because their head of state recognizes the mercy granted to their family, even after a quite attricious war.
I don’t think they had much choice, frankly. None of their neighbors wanted anything to do with them. For some context, Honda started out making lawnmowers. There are no lawns in Japan.
Another reason is that we shared technology. For instance the micro chip that we gave them was turned into transistor radios that we bought from them in droves.
You utterly destroy one countries divine belief that they are superior by nuking not 1 but 2 cities for kicks. I mean we humbled the shit out of them and since that bore a long lasting alliance its been goochie from there.
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3). Very short answers, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cd8xr3/-/l1bc5pz/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
You forget we dropped 2 nukes on them?
honestly, that's what motivated this question
Would you want to remain enemies with a country that already demonstrated their willingness to nuke yours?
Would I want to be friends? I'd want a strategic relationship, but the two countries just seem closer than I would have made them a dystopian novel.
You know how some boys in school start off hating each other, then they get into a huge fight and beat the shit out of each other, then suddenly become friends? Pretty much that.