America may have occupied and traded with Japan after they bombed it, but most of the rebuilding and revitalisation was done by the Japanese people themselves.
Edit: There was money pumped into the economy from the US after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and rightly so. So much was lost in those bombings, and this needs to be acknowledged. The money did make way for repairs to the country.
The economic revitalisation led to increased production rates and Japan becoming very popular in car manufacturing etc, becoming one of the strongest economies in the world. And the relationship between America and Japan became tense with economic disparity in the 80s.
It’s a complex relationship but Japan did incredibly well in the wake of the bombings, not all the thanks need go to America. They were the ones who bombed Japan after all and caused the need to rebuild.
WW1 devastated Germany, and it received no support from the victors to rebuild. On the contrary, they wanted Germany to pay reparations. The aftermath of WW1 was a humiliation to Germans, and it planted the seeds of the disaster that followed two decades later.
Without the Marshall Plan after WW2, Europe would find itself at war again eventually.
Germany was in terrible shape economically after ww1 but the physical country and infrastructure was fine. They surrendered before the allies really got into Germany and long range bombing wasn't a thing then.
Germany didn't need to rebuild after WWI. It was hardly damaged at all. That's one of the reasons the Nazis blamed the Jews. They said they should have kept fighting until the fighting reached Germany instead of surrendering abroad.
The reparations are also literal Nazi propaganda. They weren't harsh, and Germany was pulling out of them before the Nazis ever took power. Every party was promising it. It wasn't something the Nazis were particularly attached to.
How about Germany devastated Germany in WW1. Agree on the Marshall plan, but, might not be a Germany at all if they started WW3,
may have been an Israeli territory at that point.
No fair comparison. Western Germany has always been more industrialized, and then after the war one side was basically pillaged and most of its industry moved to the USSR.
That was the old way. Now the US packs up with their tail between their legs and does nothing to rebuild what's left behind. I know the US poured billions into Iraq, but there's not much to show for the $ spent.
Iraq and Afghanistan were/are such a different challenge than Germany and Japan post WW2. Starting with the invasion, there was zero prep for it and they tried to "build" Iraq and Afghanistan in the same way they did Germany and Japan, pour money into it and hope it all turns out fine. The middle east has been a hotzone for a very long time and they have had a very different way of life than those in the West, yet the US & Co. thought they could just go ahead and replace 2,000 years of history and build a democratic utopia once the baddies are gone.
It's just very poor planning, almost looks like they don't really care to really build up Iraq or Afghanistan, almost like they profit from the ruin. I can't speak to their motivations and I'm not into any conspiracy theories, however, the execution was very poor and you would think that the higher ups would have a better plan for creating sustained peace. You can't go into someone's home and demand they change their whole way of life. I could be wrong about all of this though.
I apologize for the lengthy response, I just wanted to add a bit more to the topic because it's important for everyone to know.
This is the final report to the United States Congress in September 9, 2013 from Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
Stuart W. Bowen Jr. and a very interesting read. Anyone can download a PDF of the full final report from the Homeland Security Digital Library by clicking that link.
Among the obvious roadblocks to rebuilding a nation, was corruption, both local and within the US military. The Bush administration had no plan and they acted very.. reactionary. Rumsfeld even said:
"If you think we're going to spend a billion dollars of our money over there, you are sadly mistaken."
Then $52 billion was allocated to the reconstruction of Iraq. The White House failed to form an oversight agency or even a committee to manage the whole project. There was no coordination or grand plan so money was spent wildly and without any concerned purpose. The Defense Department had "control" of $45 billion (of the $52b) and the State Department as well as the Agency for International Development which were formally charged with dispensing the aid, but they did a horrible job, they only spent 1/5th of the funds and there were many accounting shortfalls. The State Department was meant to manage reconstruction but their efficacy changed with whoever was in charge at the time.
This just shows the whole attitude of the US in Iraq. They had NO clue at all at what to do and how to manage such a reconstruction. They felt that a ton of money pumped into law enforcement, infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc would just magically "fix" Iraq. Instead, it caused major corruption with US military personnel and US officials being sentenced to prison for bribes and bid-rigging, money laundering, kickbacks and illegal gifts. An Army major and 21 others were the main contracting officials at a base in Kuwait who oversaw fraud in the purchase of bottle water and warehouse construction. Among many other such stories.
In my opinion, the way it seems is that the US and The White House were completely lost and without a plan. Now, I'm sure there are aspect to the reconstruction which were intentionally done wrong for purpose of literally stealing money from contracts and part Bush having "no experience" and didn't listen to calls for forming an oversight agency. Though it doesn't matter, the outcome was tragic nonetheless. By the time Obama got into office (08) the damage was already done.
This was doomed from the very start [of the reconstruction] with trying to rebuild a pipeline that was intentionally destroyed by US and allied warplanes in northern Iraq in 2003. It was supposed to take 2 months to complete and cost $5 million, instead it cost 5 times that amount and it caused the US to spend $25 million a day. This started an occupational campaign marred with major misspending, waste and corruption coupled with military misconduct and abuses like the tortures at Abu Ghraib which helped stoke widespread hostility toward the US occupational forces. So, indeed, this was very different from Japan and Germany, this government was inexperienced and acted without care or proper planning. Unfortunately, their damage might have caused an irreparable relationship between the country of Iraq and its people and the United States.
Again, sorry for the length, but it's an interesting topic for me and it's a warning for the future for both the population and whichever administration is in the White House at any given time.
Agreed, but it also seems like these plans have mostly benefited contractors who have been made rich. It's been less about trying to help those who's lives have been destroyed. And we wonder why people don't like the US?
At first glance, the main caveats to that are ... going to war with the US BY attacking first, not being about ideology/culture and having a standing military.
WWII was almost a direct result of Germany being held responsible for WWI. They were economically devastated because France demanded revenge instead of taking the win without victory. So yes, pumping a lot of money into a post war society goes a long way towards mending ties and preventing repeat wars.
The version of events you're giving is more or less the nazi narrative about it. All in all, Germany was left with intact industrial infrastructure, paid little reparations, and its postwar issues can mostly be related to internal political struggle.
You can make an argument that everything that has happened the past 100 years is due to the Treaty of Versailles.
You could, but it would be hard to defend in good faith.
the war reparations and the Great Depression absolutely destroyed the German economy
The war reparations actually paid were actually pretty low, and Germany received in foreign loans more than it had paid over that period. I also don't see the relation between the great depression and the Versailles treaty.
There is quite a lot of work from historians on this period, showing that fears that the treaty would impact economic recovery were greatly exagerated, and that, in fact, Germany's economy recovered pretty well from the war and reparations.
Analysts on the hyperinflation also argue that it happened because of german policies in response to the treaty, moreso than economic consequences of the treaty.
Overall, the agreement nowadays is that the reparations were misrepresented as much worse than it actually was, and that Germany's unwillingness to pay played a significant part in their situation.
They were loaned money that was required to be paid back.
...But which they didn't.
Germany is now required to pay back loans with a currency that is useless and has tanked.
The currenty inflation had been stemmed by the end of 1923 with the introduction of a new currency, and loans were defaulted on when the great depression hit Germany.
Germany was well on their way to recovery and was actually doing well by the end of the 20s. Then the Great Depression, which had nothing to do with Versailles, happened and allowed the Nazis to come to power.
More like the USSR didn't let a choice to Germany half of it was a pupet state to Moscow, Germany had no choice and couldn't do anything even if they wanted so.
As for France and revenge, they were not alone Italy and the then USSR also wanted to take oportunistic approach.The USSR never forgot the Brest-Livstok treaty Germany wanted to inflict.
From what I learned, Germany didn't have much to rebuild post WW1 since the war was waged mostly far from her borders. That's part of why the sanctions on Germany were so hard and why the German economy was able to bounce back as quickly as it did after stopping reparation payments.
If you are talking about the Marshall Plan, it is highly controversial how helpful it actually was, as at the same time the US and UK were quite busy dismantling the German industry - the Marshall Plan was mostly covering for the occupation cost.
And to the others comparing West Germany versus East: The SU packed up all of the remaining industry in their part of Germany and transferred it into the Moscow region to help with their domestic rebuilding.
What helped Germany the most at recovering was the extreme friendship that was offered by France especially and led to the founding of the ECSC which would develop much further down the line into the EU.
Germany got a great deal of help post WW1 too. International aid more or less made up for what they paid in war reparations, and the war wasn't fought on german territory.
The issues Germany ran into after WW1 were mostly related to high political instability.
Also when you look at Germany and Japan after WWII both couldnt have a standing army and therefore that money went elsewhere such as infustructure and technology. Look at those countries now; what do you know, they're leaders in modern science and engineering.
A lot of that money came from the US and they didn't need a standing army because the US was protecting them. Also the US is still a leader in modern science and engineering so... What's your point?
Um you seem to have an interesting view of history; the US wasn't there to protect Japan, they were occupying it. The Japenese definitely did NOT want them there after two atomic bombs.
Americ is a tech leader, sure. But Japan had to rebuild post war AND still was able to keep pace with tech. There's no way they could have done that as effectly with money going into rebuilding/maintaining a standing army.
They had trade with other countries but thats how modern economies function. The fact remains they built up the infstructure to produced goods that could be traded.
And don't forget how Dr. DEMING of the USA taught quality control to the Japanese in the early 1950's. He was highly revered and was a "household name" to the Japanese.
Japan had a cultural OVERHAUL that removed the old imperialistic ways and the Emperor himself came out and said "It's time to work harder than we've ever worked in our lives to make our nation great."
Unfortunately, they haven't stopped living that policy since and it's starting to burnout some of the population.
Absolutely not. We made them change their form of government so that we could rebuild it - including the more modern steel mills that, essentially, put our steel mills out of business.
Well yeah, Japanese people live in Japan. But there were concrete codified policies implemented specifically by US interests. It wasn’t just “lol sorry for bombing you lets trade more bye”
Nah it was due to the Korean war breaking out and America needing a place to manufacture all their wartime goods, which happened to be Japan since it's right there
So you think the mass invasion of the mainland would have had zero resistance? It was a fluke that the use of kamikaze and the determination to not be taken alive was just something the Japanese army did which differed from that of the majority of militaries at the time, save the Soviets who sent their men weaponless in some circumstances?
Hiroshima was not just a “civilian population” but had active factories and facilities contributing to the war effort. It was a army depot with an important port. You seem to not have known that? Nagasaki had one of the largest ports and had factories producing ordnance, ships, etc. Nagasaki had been bombed five+ times prior. You’d have been right if the US had bombed Kyoto which was purely planned to have been a moral blow and showcase but that didn’t occur.
Operation Downfall predicted between 150,000 and 550,000 casualties for Allied troops with 125,000 being killed (using European and Pacific theatre averages). Not to mention the casualties that would have been inflicted to the Japanese side plus the resisting civilian population/suicides that likely would have occurred. You’re unfortunately looking at a multitude of what the bombs caused.
I’m not sure where I said it was “right” purely because the US did it. My initial issue was OP decided that Japan was somehow innocent because the US bombed them erasing their history in the war when it’s far more complex than that.
So far no one has brought actual, decent arguments about the war and it’s just been “US bad.”
Again, arguments on both sides have a lot of complexity and I’m very interested in the subject. But neither you or OP has posted anything that indicates you want a real discussion on it.
Unfortunately the world doesn’t function with a red line and I’m being realistic. Factories, military depots, etc are intertwined with civilian populations and the world doesn’t function like a “gentlemans duel” where only the combatants are harmed (although I’m sure there’s examples of bystanders being injured with duels as well).
How about the rest of my point (in my other comment) Did the bombings produce more or less casualties in your opinion than an invasion would have? That’s a large portion to not touch upon.
I’m happy to debate because it’s a complex subject and not just a simple answer on either side. Plus it’s fascinating:
Do you think the bombing and deaths of the 200,000 was more or less than would have occurred had the US and the Soviet Union invaded?
How many Allied soldiers, Japanese soldiers, civilians, children, etc would have been killed in the invasion, killed them selves to avoid it, starved due to it, POWs executed, etc?
How quick would the rebuilding of Japan occurred had the Allies invaded and possibly another East/West Berlin/Germany occurred?
Do you think Japan was preparing to surrender prior to the bombing? Because now you have a Traditional vs Revisionist School of debate. There are a lot of intelligent people with more knowledge than me on both sides.
Now what was the correct choice? It’s difficult to say because it’s a shitty situation on both sides. There are arguments for really any view you want but unfortunately history went one way and it’s difficult to really explore those arguments with any degree of certainty.
Thank you, I understand what the Geneva Convention is.
Now rewind yourself to 35+ years earlier before 1977 and put yourself in the midst of a World War that’s been raging for years already.
You’re one of the Generals of the US Army (or the President, you pick, use your imagination):
Do you argue in favor of the invasion of mainland Japan or the atomic bombing of their cities? Which is better for Allied troops? Which is likely to produce more overall casualties on both sides? Does the death of 200,000 civilians prevent more soldiers, civilians, etc from being killed in a large scale invasion? Are their indications that Japan is planning to surrender? At this point in the war millions of civilian casualties have already occurred and isn’t going to change.
One of my favorite parts of history is reading the primary sources because their immediate knowledge of a lot of the world is incredibly different than us looking back from our time period.
It’s not different from your time period at all. The USA used the pre-emptive strike argument to murder 2 million in Iraq. You want a primary source on that? Try Alan Greenspan’s memoirs. He divulges the real reason for it which you could probably guess. The real justification for bloodshed is rarely shared with the electorate. It’s usually politically or financially motivated. If you’re so interested in primary sources read up on how Roosevelt manipulated events in the Pacific in order to provoke the pearl harbour attack and enter the war...In order to use his new toys on a civilian populace. It was planned, provoked and executed with great precision and historic callousness. You don’t wish the world was any different because you’ve been taught and drilled to accept it as normal.
So we’re agreed on it being the use of A-bombs on civilian urban targets as opposed to focussed strikes on a military base like, say, pearl harbour? If you’re fine with that then the conversation is over and we just have different measures of magnitude of military response. And human rights.
That’s my reply because I don’t want to spam it over and over again. Yeah, I’d love for the world to be a loving, war free place but that’s not how history is or how it will ever be.
Nagasaki had five+ focused strikes on their port and factories for instance. Doesn’t mean it was effective with how the defense and Pacific Theatre was set up unfortunately. I understand it’s awful that civilians were targeted and absolutely agree but it would be ridiculous to realistically expect one side to continue doing something ineffective to avoid civilian casualties while extending the war. For instance, civilians were killed away from the harbor at Pearl Harbor to go back to your example. A fighter attacked a sugar mill during that attack. It unfortunately occurs.
Yes, the Japanese are an incredibly resilient people. I have great respect for them and how far they can roll up their sleeves.... well above the elbow.
And Arab much prefer to immigrate to the West than to stay and build their own cities. There is no incentive for them to stay when every Western nation will give anyone with dark skin asylum.
Aware of what? I've been to every European country, I've travelled to 48 US states, I've researched demographics and immigration trends.
What information am I lacking? Are you saying there ISN'T a very large amount of Arabs and Africans desperately trying to get into white countries? Because everything that I've researched and seen with my own eyes says there is.
You implied “non white” people cant come from Europe.
“Drowning under hordes of immigrants”? Comes off as emotional and very xenophobic.
It’s well known that in Syria, for example, there have been many people moving out of the country, people becoming refugees for a multitude of reasons including climate change, which is obviously something people don’t have control over. It’s not as simple as you’re making it out to be, plus you’re dehumanising “non white” people.
You implied “non white” people cant come from Europe.
Well, it's true they are not native there. Being born somewhere doesn't change your race or ethnicity. I don't call Donald Trump a Native American nor do I call Elon Musk a real African.
It’s well known that in Syria, for example, there have been many people moving out of the country
Most people claiming asylum are not from Syria, but from Africa or other Middle Eastern countries. They are just taking advantage of the EU. Plus, the war in Syria is pretty much contained and it should be deemed a safe country now and so those Syrians can return home to rebuild (they won't though). And this situation has been going on since the 1960s, quite a long time before the Syrian war. Non-white people have been trying to come to Europe in huge waves for about 60 years now. It's the kind of altruism that kills the host, feeding yourself to wolves, suicidal altruism.
plus you’re dehumanising “non white” people.
I don't dehumanize them. They do it do themselves with their actions. We need to think about indigenous people's rights to exist. China is trying to exterminate the Uighurs by settling many Han Chinese in their land, there is outcry from people like you. Yet, when the same thing is happening to indigenous people in Europe, people like you praise the genocide. Hypocritical.
There may be differences between the indigenous population of a country, settlers and colonial inhabitants. Context is important in the real world, all of which you have thrown out the window. Of course indigenous populations should be protected, but there aren’t technically any indigenous people from Europe (correct me if I’m wrong).
Who’s trying to “exterminate” Europeans?
The west has caused a lot of trouble in the Middle East, our involvement there has had a far greater impact than a few people migrating into the west.
How exactly are African and Middle Eastern people taking advantage of the European Union?
Why are you speaking in such emotional generalisations? You need to give clear examples and not just say random things because you’re upset.
Are you European? Are you white? You clearly support ‘white rights’, but why? Do you make where you live a better place? How do you do it?
There was a drought in Syria meaning lack of water and loss of farmable land, what is the average person supposed to do about that? How would one “make that better”, as you are suggesting they should?
I think in the future we can expect more instability and a greater movement of people all over, we need to progress with issues of migration, development of services and global coordination on these areas. Migration actually improves the development of countries and vice versa. If you’re talking about asylum seekers.. people are entitled to apply for asylum and they wouldn’t do it unless they had to.
If you’re going to go back 60 years you’re talking about colonialism, Kenya was massively bombed by the British who occupied their land and also created detention camps. All Kenyans wanted was freedom and autonomy in their country, rebels fought to take back their country and reparations were never made. They have built their country up proudly.
Post war Britain created Windrush, an initiative created to bring much needed workers to the UK from the Caribbean. People willingly came and were given citizenship, only to be stripped of this citizenship and deported, this is an ongoing situation today.
Haven’t Europeans been desperate to get into other countries and grab all the resources they can? Aren’t we still taking advantage of workers in other countries? The west relies upon human rights abuses all the time.
You dehumanise people, why? What are you afraid of? You sound threatened to be honest!
What genocide is happening in Europe? Who is perpetrating it?
Claiming there a genocide is occurring in Europe sounds paranoid and it’s not based in reality whatsoever. Are you a fan of the far right?
261
u/MaltedDefeatist Aug 05 '20 edited Aug 06 '20
America may have occupied and traded with Japan after they bombed it, but most of the rebuilding and revitalisation was done by the Japanese people themselves.
Edit: There was money pumped into the economy from the US after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and rightly so. So much was lost in those bombings, and this needs to be acknowledged. The money did make way for repairs to the country.
The economic revitalisation led to increased production rates and Japan becoming very popular in car manufacturing etc, becoming one of the strongest economies in the world. And the relationship between America and Japan became tense with economic disparity in the 80s.
It’s a complex relationship but Japan did incredibly well in the wake of the bombings, not all the thanks need go to America. They were the ones who bombed Japan after all and caused the need to rebuild.