Why didn't regime change & occupation further radicalize Germans & Japanese?

Aug 2013
613
Pomerium
#1
Supposedly, American led regime change and occupation fuel extremism and help radicalize local population; then why didn't postwar Germany see more and more Germans radicalized into Nazism, Positive Christianity, etc., why didn't postwar Japan see more and more Japanese radicalized into jingoism, Bushido, etc.?
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,212
Netherlands
#2
Can't really discuss Japan due to lack of knowledge. But for Germany it is easy. There of course many more reasons, but the main one is that things were actually improving. Germany looked like a scene from Mad Max. Less than 10 years later they won the world cup.
 

Lucius

Forum Staff
Jan 2007
16,363
Nebraska
#3
Yes.

Every square foot of Germany and Japan had been converted via air power into a howling wasteland of ash and twisted metal.

Even the bare dirt was scorched.
 
Aug 2013
613
Pomerium
#5
But for Germany it is easy. There of course many more reasons, but the main one is that things were actually improving. Germany looked like a scene from Mad Max. Less than 10 years later they won the world cup.
Why couldn't remnant fanatical Nazis keep things from improving by radicalizing and recruiting susceptible members of their society and blowing up buses, schools, stadiums, and what have you?
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,072
Republika Srpska
#6
Why couldn't remnant fanatical Nazis keep things from improving by radicalizing and recruiting susceptible members of their society and blowing up buses, schools, stadiums, and what have you?
Most high-ranking Nazis were either killed or committed suicide and by the end of the war, most people were disillusioned with the Nazis. There was no one really to lead the guerilla warfare against the Allies. As for the Japanese, well, they knew the power of the atomic bombs and also their Emperor was now dedicated to preserve the peace so they followed suit.
 

Valens

Ad Honorem
Feb 2014
8,261
Colonia Valensiana
#7
Most high-ranking Nazis were either killed or committed suicide and by the end of the war, most people were disillusioned with the Nazis. There was no one really to lead the guerilla warfare against the Allies. As for the Japanese, well, they knew the power of the atomic bombs and also their Emperor was now dedicated to preserve the peace so they followed suit.
And those remaining Nazis who survived were recruited by Western intelligence services. Nazi scientists also found new employment with the Allies.

About the OP. Germans and Japanese were defeated countries. It was not a regime change, but a complete military defeat. The populations of both countries were exhausted by war and at the mercy of the victors.
After such destruction and misery, most people were simply eager to go on with normal life.
 
Apr 2016
900
Netherlands
#8
Also a major factor is that the Allies kept government instances intact. Top ranking Nazi's and war criminals were removed, but the rest was able to continue their jobs.

A strong contrast with how the Americans dismantled every government instance in Iraq.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,074
Dispargum
#9
Germans and Japanese were defeated countries. It was not a regime change, but a complete military defeat. The populations of both countries were exhausted by war and at the mercy of the victors.
After such destruction and misery, most people were simply eager to go on with normal life.
The but same thing could be said about Iraq and Afghanistan but the popular response to foreign occupation was very different.


I would say that in Germany the victorious Allies changed very little about Germany. Even democracy was not new to the Germans. The government had been headed by a chancellor for almost 80 years. Germany had an elected national legislature since 1871. Those are good foundations for democracy. Japan also had experience with democracy. But in Iraq and Afghanistan we Americans attempted to introduce too much change, too quickly. Iraqis and Afghans had no experience with, or desire for, democracy, female education, etc.
 

Valens

Ad Honorem
Feb 2014
8,261
Colonia Valensiana
#10
The but same thing could be said about Iraq and Afghanistan but the popular response to foreign occupation was very different.


I would say that in Germany the victorious Allies changed very little about Germany. Even democracy was not new to the Germans. The government had been headed by a chancellor for almost 80 years. Germany had an elected national legislature since 1871. Those are good foundations for democracy. Japan also had experience with democracy. But in Iraq and Afghanistan we Americans attempted to introduce too much change, too quickly. Iraqis and Afghans had no experience with, or desire for, democracy, female education, etc.
I don't agree. Both Iraq and Afghanistan had a number of secular, socialist regimes. Afghanistan in the 70's had a progressive regime which promoted women's rights, for example.
Saddam's regime in Iraq came in the age of Arab nationalism and socialism.

WWII cannot be compared with modern conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is now more the evident that 'democratic change' was never a goal of the invasions.

Looking at Germany, I would argue that the country was very much changed after the Allied occupation. Same goes for Europe which underwent a great deal of cultural Americanization in the decades after WWII.