10 ms·
> I would give credit to the people and government of Japan for their post-war success: it could easily have gone another direction, and the U.S. couldn't have
by DubiousPusher 4y ago
> I would give credit to the people and government of Japan for their post-war success: it could easily have gone another direction, and the U.S. couldn't have stopped that from happening.
I suggest you read more about the post war occupation of Japan. The U.S. put its thumb heavily on the scale forcing Japan to accept democratization throughout. Unusual for the U.S. this included pushing economic democracy by supporting Japan's very successful land redistribution scheme.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> The U.S. put its thumb heavily on the scale More than a thumb. The Constitution of Japan was written by Americans. America stomped on the scale, and that time it seems to have worked.
- agumonkey 4y agoisn't it cultural ? japanese seems to be ok struggling under american control and keep reaching higher. People say US money made Japan thrive but so many time throwing money at a large problem fails.. I think the population was just more mentally compatible. Or maybe the post soviet Russia was dealt a bad hand. Hard to know (just like here, you can find infinite streams of contradictory arguments)
- MichaelCollins 4y agoHard to say. I suspect the horrific bombing of Japanese cities probably had something to do with their willingness to submit. Leaving their Emperor intact as a figurehead probably helped a lot. Perhaps American willingness to help Japan rebuild immediately after such a bitter war also played a role. There were probably innumerable factors that went into it. But there are a lot of differences between that situation and the fall of the Soviet Union.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoChief among them is, the US did not conquer or occupy the USSR. We had definite say in Japan (and West Germany). We didn't in the USSR.
- DubiousPusher 4y agoThat's a good point. America had some influence and backed Yeltsin to the hilt but he outflanked Gorbachev in the end and I'm not sure if that could've been changed.
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoWW2 was the culmination of Japan's semi-conscious effort to speed run the transition from feudal backwater to first rate world power. Considering all the stuff they had pulled off up until that point and that they exited WW2 with their national identity and power structures intact I don't think it's that surprising that they pulled off the transition from imperial government to constitutional democracy with an imperial figurehead.
- fomine3 4y agoKorean war is a big reason why Japanese industries revived, and the US don't want let Japan poor
- bigcat12345678 4y ago> isn't it cultural ? On the one hand, in the scale of brutality, every nation in history is at least 1 level below the Imperial Japan in WWII. On the other hand, after the decisive show of force, beaconed by the nuclear bomb, Japan realized that brutality is going to cause the doom of that nation. So they naturally bowed down. After that brutality is no longer necessary, like a beaten dog that would not really need a leash.
- agumonkey 4y agoIt's one way to see that. But after such brutal events it's easy for a people to fall into despair or hate but Japan bounce back better than a lot of country. They rapidly absorbed and mastered electronics better than a lot of country. I always find it rare.
- bigcat12345678 4y agoThat part thanks to confuscious tradition Look at China, Confucius is the God of Asia....
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> They rapidly absorbed and mastered electronics better than a lot of country. I believe this is something they started doing before/during the war. Specifically I've heard that they started reverse engineering and producing copies of allied radio equipment during the war.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vintermann 4y agoBut it ironically worked a lot because they pushed a constitution which looked nothing like their own.
- karaterobot 4y agoThanks for the suggestion about learning about the occupation. To be clear: my statement wasn't that the U.S. did nothing, but that there is no amount they could have done which would force Japan to succeed against their will, or their own ability. There are many examples of the U.S. putting its thumb on the scale, so to speak, in countries where there was not a subsequent, successful democratic transition. The difference between these cases, I'm suggesting, is not the weight of U.S. involvement, but factors external to U.S. foreign policy, such as the people in the countries affected.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- DubiousPusher 4y agoI see what you mean. I guess we'll never know. Because there was a remaking of Japanese society after the war in a democratic image. That just doesn't even appear as though it was attempted in post Soviet Russia. I don't kmow the origins of why America departed from its usual course of propping up the traditional land owning and wealthy bourgeoisie classes in it' s occupation of Japan. I know FDR personally held very pro democracy and anti colonialist views. He had ambitions to remake America's relations with the developing world after the war though how far he would've progressed on that front is unknown. And of course he was dead by the end of the war and Japan was in the more conservative hands of Truman. Perhaps the Japanese people ran with this program because of their cultural tenacity. Or perhaps because their defeat had been so total that they truly considered themselves defeated and simply wished to move on whatever with whatever power structure was presented. Ultimately though, America began a campaign to turn the "subjects" of the Japanese Empire into "citizens" of a Japanese constitutional state. They did not undertake a similar project to turn "comrades" of the Soviet Union into "citizens" of a Russian Republic.
- pm90 4y agoThe US never invaded Russia, so they didn’t have the kind of power they had over post WW2 Japan. Anyways even with that kind of power, the prevailing economic ideology at the time the Soviet Union fell was of extreme neoliberalism, so I doubt it would have helped anyway.
- jollybean 4y agoThe US military defeated Japan and was an occupying power. The US had the power to dictate whatever terms. Japan was on it's back. Russia in 1992 was it's own entity. Still a nuclear power. Making it's own decisions. Not only would Russia not have tolerated US intervention, I'm extremely doubtful there could have been such a thing on any terms. As it stands, much of the money used by Oligarchs to buy up Natural Resources firms was from the US private banking system. Russia is Russia, they are 100% responsible for their own problems, and those have been roiling through history for 100's of years.
- confidantlake 4y agoCompletely agree. Why would have Russia agreed to a Marshall plan? It makes little sense.
- sigzero 4y agoCorrect. It's an "apples to oranges" comparison.
- somat 4y agoThis is true, the question is, what was the difference between the occupation of japan and germany and the occupation of afganistan, iraq or vietnam. The lesson of the latter is that all it takes is 20 years of low level combat until the occupying country gets tired and leaves. the lesson of the former is that defeated countries can become your greatest allies. As to what leads a nation to choose one path or the other... That is complicated. as a interesting special case consider korea
- kranke155 4y agoThe idea of a democratic Japan is itself interesting as for the most part it actually is a one party state. Outside of brief breaks, one party has held power in post war Japan. So even with the US stomping the scale, it still didn’t make it some kind of European multi partisan parliamentary democracy.
- fomine3 4y agoI think US encouraged current only one party is strong situation as a result. LDP was encouraged by the US to against communists/socialists.