Additional information
by Charles River (Author)
*Includes pictures
*Explains the formation of a new constitution, as well as the democratization and demilitarization processes
*Includes a bibliography for further reading*Includes a table of contents
The American occupation of Japan holds a singular and problematic place in the histories both of Japan and of American foreign policy. For the Japanese, the occupation marked the transition from war to peace, from authoritarianism to democracy, and from privation to plenty, making it a passage from one of the darkest chapters in Japanese history to one of the brightest. Nevertheless, the significance of that passage was fraught with ambiguities; after all, Japan did not win its new democracy through revolution from below in the form of a popular indigenous movement pressing for increased rights and a more open, inclusive politics. Instead, Japanese democracy came as a revolution from above, a system imposed wholesale and virtually without consultation by an occupying army whose Supreme Allied Commander, General Douglas MacArthur, wielded power as absolute and unchecked as any emperor. Many critics at the time and since have worried that the political system established by the occupation was thus somehow hollow, a thin veneer of participatory democracy resting uncomfortably atop a deeply conservative and hierarchical culture, symbolized above all by the continuing presence of an emperor. Others have argued that the contradictions of a radical democratic revolution from above are real but irrelevant. Presented for the first time with open space for genuine political speech and action, ordinary Japanese seized the opportunity to exercise agency over the course of their own lives, pulling Japan in directions that neither the old Japanese political elite nor the new American occupation authorities had foreseen.On the American side, the significance of the occupation is no less contentious. On the one hand, after three and a half years of some of the most bitter and bloody combat the world had ever seen, the occupation authorities might well have set out to avenge themselves upon the Japanese people for Pearl Harbor and all that had followed by instituting a harsh and punitive peace, much the way the Soviet Union did in the regions of Germany it came to occupy. That the Americans instead exerted themselves to reconstruct Japan as a peaceful, democratic, and prosperous ally is often proffered as an example of Americans' fundamental sense of justice, redemption, and fair play. At the same time, the particular course the occupation took cannot be understood outside the context of the developing global Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. With Communist hegemony in the Russian Far East, in Manchuria, in northern Korea, and (after 1949) even in China, American policymakers felt the urgent need for a stable, reliable ally in northeast Asia. Thus, in the American occupation of Japan, the interests of enlightened humanitarianism and cold-blooded realpolitik were, for the most part, conveniently aligned.Indeed, it is important to consider the long shadow that the occupation of Japan has cast over the conduct of American foreign policy in the decades since World War II. On the surface, the goals of the occupation authorities may have seemed positively herculean: the transformation of a warlike, authoritarian, and economically devastated enemy into a peaceful, democratic, and prosperous ally. To the careful historian, the fact that the occupation authorities succeeded so dramatically in achieving these objectives must suggest that, for all the unquestionable drama and heroics of the period, their task was not so Quixotic as it may have appeared, and that Japanese society was, in important ways, already primed for the radical reforms the occupiers set in motion.The Postwar Occupation of Japan looks at the history from the surrender to end World War II to the independence of the modern Japanese nation.
