Why is there a difference in the military between Japan (pacifist) and Germany (full capability) all stemming from WWII?
I understand the arrangement with Japan (unconditional surrender.. so on so forth)... but why is Germany different?
MJ
Krupp?
It is the post-war Japanese Constitution that severely restricts the Japanese military. I’m not sure of the specifics.
Why is sushi different from Weinerschnitzel?.......
Germany faced the Warsaw Pact. It was in their interest, and ours, for Germany to be strong enough to make an invasion from the East seem like a bad idea. That has worked out well for them.
Indeed, the fight against communism was the reason for the re-armament of Germany. But nevertheless, there are still restrictions on Germany, it may not have: strategic bombers, NBC-weapons, carriers or nuclear subs.
Unconditional surrender means just that...unconditional.
Post war Japan was owned and operated by the United States under the managership of General McArthur, who also wrote the Japanese constitution.
Post war Germany was divided with the east controlled by the Soviets and the west had a strong U.S. military presence to counter that Soviet threat.
The USSR in the 50s - 80s and Putin now. It’s as simple as that.
in a parallel world without Red China it probably would have all worked out fine...
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
Because of the Russian threat against Germany.
By the time it was over, it was clear that a German military force was needed on the front lines.
The US even had to recruit former Luftwaffe guys to work on the planes during the airlift. Although fraternization was prohibited, it did occur, and that was also a contributing factor in the change in attitude.
A similar ‘front line’ scenario with regard to Japan has only recently developed.
How about this?
In Europe, the Soviet Army never went home (until the Cold War ‘ended’).
In Japan, the Soviet Army never got there (Sakhalin aside).
Geographical differences (Japan is an island) also makes direct invasion problematic unless the US Navy / USAF suddenly went home — which they weren’t going to.
The defensive response of both countries were conditioned by very basic factors.
Both countries have essentially pacifist constitutions and have had about 60 years of peace and protection.
I'm curious: why would anyone think that Germany is "fully capable"? And why would anyone one want to see militarism start up again in either country?
Why would you expect them to be the same?
They are different cultures and were allies in WW II against the same American enemy for completely different reasons.
Germany was partitioned and was threatened till the fall of the Soviet Union. Japan had no such threat.
Japan has the industrial strength that she could easily re-arm with a 1st rate military. However, her people are civilized and respect the rule of law, namely her Constitution. Should the people of Japan decide to change the law, they can, up until this point, they have chosen not to.
Aside from cultural differences, the Allies re-armed Germany as a front line against the Soviets, and discouraged Japan from re-arming.
Ocean... Japan could afford to be a pacifist nation, Germany had The Soviets on their borders and in half their country.