In the run-up to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 under President George W. Bush many of the supporters of that action used the American occupation of Japan as a suitable comparison. These advisors predicated that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would be a success just as they thought the Occupation in Japan was a success. Clearly, the United States actions in Iraq turned out quite differently than predicted. But in many ways the Occupation of Japan was a success, although there were also elements that were less successful. Historians continue to study the Allied Occupation of Japan for lessons on democratization and social change. As you see in the reading on the Showa Revival, even today many in Japan look back fondly at this period of the 1950s and 1960s. Based on your reading, here is your chance to draw a few conclusions. Please post your thoughts on the following questions:
How can we explain the successes of the Occupation – when a team of Americans tried to design reforms for another country based on their understanding of both their country (the USA) and Japan? Why did some reforms introduced by the Americans not last, while others have continued to be embraced and defended to this day by the Japanese (such as Article 9 of the Constitution which outlaws the military, or at least sort of)? What conclusions, if any, can we take away from an examination of this period about the possibilities and limits of social change?
0 comments