General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Japans constitution
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: October 25, 2001 12:20PM
<HTML>I remember seeing on TV German troops in peacekeeping missions in the Balkans firing back after being fired upon. I remember thinking "I bet that is the first time they have fired in anger since WWII".
Such was the case.
My understanding is that while Germany can legally deploy troops for outside conflicts, domestic and international politics have made that difficult.
Did German combat or support troops participate in Desert Storm?
The Japanese consitution, written by American occupation authorities that (mistakenly) viewed Japan as culturally and ethnically unreformably warlike, forbids war in any context, or the possesion of armed forces, or arms, of any kind. The Japanese were basically forced to sign this constitution at gunpoint. The constitution does not bar the deployment of troops outside of Japan. It bans troops, period.
But the constitution, like the US constitution it is modelled on, has a lot of good parts as well as a few anachronisms, and adds political stability by being very hard to change.
As both the Japanese and the Americans realized that the constitution was written too strictly, they have 'reinterpreted' it to mean 'well, an army for pure self defense of only the home country is not really and army, so that is ok.' This 'interpretation' is very strained, legally indefensible, but politically safe, and has slowly evolved. Legally, Japan does not have armed forces, they have 'self defense forces'. The difference is somewhat hard to detect at times, but is politically very important. There is a long list of slowly evolving things they can't have because it is not purely for self defense, from aircraft carriers to aerial tankers to GPS recievers on their fighters (no militay use of space).
Obviously, as an independent soveriegn nation, Japan could at any time reform its internal constitution to allow war, but has chosen not to.
The reasons for this are complex, but I would sum them up as:
1) Unlike the Germans, the Japanese have done a terrible job of resolving their wartime behaviour. This lack of repentance has led to a deep distrust, and continuuing hatred, by their neighbors, that inhibits any military role by Japan outside of Japan.
2) The Japanese public deeply distrusts the political dangers posed by the military - and militarism, and feels intensely uncomfortable with a powerfull military. The public blames the military, not fanatic politicians, for the devastation of WWII. Japanese military personel that I worked with had to change from uniforms to civies in public because they would be spat on if they wore their uniforms publicly. The military has rock bottom prestige as a career, and as an institution.
3) The Japanese public learned from the war and the occupation that fighting wars is awful, but losing them ain't so bad. "Nothing, no cause, is worth fighting for. War is worse than anything else, including surrender" is something I heard many times from older war era Japanese when I lived in Japan.
4) The lack of a substantial military role by the Japanese has worked to their diplomatic and economic advantage. A lack of any military posture avoids pissing anyone off. Japan maintains cordial ties with both sides in the middle east, and many other areas of conflicts.
I have no doubt that as the war generation fades into history that Japan will slowly resolve their past and take their place among major powers as a 'normal nation'. The war ban in the constitution will be removed or ignored. The younger generation has a much more open attitude and will bring a different, fresher, and more mature view to their past, and their future.</HTML>
Such was the case.
My understanding is that while Germany can legally deploy troops for outside conflicts, domestic and international politics have made that difficult.
Did German combat or support troops participate in Desert Storm?
The Japanese consitution, written by American occupation authorities that (mistakenly) viewed Japan as culturally and ethnically unreformably warlike, forbids war in any context, or the possesion of armed forces, or arms, of any kind. The Japanese were basically forced to sign this constitution at gunpoint. The constitution does not bar the deployment of troops outside of Japan. It bans troops, period.
But the constitution, like the US constitution it is modelled on, has a lot of good parts as well as a few anachronisms, and adds political stability by being very hard to change.
As both the Japanese and the Americans realized that the constitution was written too strictly, they have 'reinterpreted' it to mean 'well, an army for pure self defense of only the home country is not really and army, so that is ok.' This 'interpretation' is very strained, legally indefensible, but politically safe, and has slowly evolved. Legally, Japan does not have armed forces, they have 'self defense forces'. The difference is somewhat hard to detect at times, but is politically very important. There is a long list of slowly evolving things they can't have because it is not purely for self defense, from aircraft carriers to aerial tankers to GPS recievers on their fighters (no militay use of space).
Obviously, as an independent soveriegn nation, Japan could at any time reform its internal constitution to allow war, but has chosen not to.
The reasons for this are complex, but I would sum them up as:
1) Unlike the Germans, the Japanese have done a terrible job of resolving their wartime behaviour. This lack of repentance has led to a deep distrust, and continuuing hatred, by their neighbors, that inhibits any military role by Japan outside of Japan.
2) The Japanese public deeply distrusts the political dangers posed by the military - and militarism, and feels intensely uncomfortable with a powerfull military. The public blames the military, not fanatic politicians, for the devastation of WWII. Japanese military personel that I worked with had to change from uniforms to civies in public because they would be spat on if they wore their uniforms publicly. The military has rock bottom prestige as a career, and as an institution.
3) The Japanese public learned from the war and the occupation that fighting wars is awful, but losing them ain't so bad. "Nothing, no cause, is worth fighting for. War is worse than anything else, including surrender" is something I heard many times from older war era Japanese when I lived in Japan.
4) The lack of a substantial military role by the Japanese has worked to their diplomatic and economic advantage. A lack of any military posture avoids pissing anyone off. Japan maintains cordial ties with both sides in the middle east, and many other areas of conflicts.
I have no doubt that as the war generation fades into history that Japan will slowly resolve their past and take their place among major powers as a 'normal nation'. The war ban in the constitution will be removed or ignored. The younger generation has a much more open attitude and will bring a different, fresher, and more mature view to their past, and their future.</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
Bundeswer
|
Yuri IL'IN | 10/24/2001 07:58PM |
|
Re: Bundeswer
|
Joe Brennan | 10/25/2001 07:57AM |
|
Re: Bundeswer
|
Yuri IL'IN | 10/25/2001 08:19AM |
|
Re: Bundeswer
|
oliver | 10/28/2001 06:34PM |
|
Re: NATO
|
Valeria | 10/25/2001 10:36PM |
|
Re: for Valeria
|
Joe Brennan | 10/26/2001 11:36AM |
|
Re: Imigrate ???
|
Brian Corijn | 10/26/2001 08:43PM |
|
Re: Imigrate ???
|
Valeria | 10/26/2001 09:54PM |
|
Re: Imigrate ???
|
Joe Brennan | 10/27/2001 08:52AM |
|
Re: Imigrate ???
|
Tono | 10/27/2001 02:29PM |
|
Re:Your comments?
|
Joe Brennan | 10/28/2001 09:06AM |
|
Re:Your comments?
|
Tono | 10/28/2001 02:04PM |
|
Re:Your comments?
|
Joe Brennan | 10/29/2001 07:51AM |
|
Re: Imigrate ???
|
Brian Corijn | 10/27/2001 06:13PM |
|
Re: Incorrect.!
|
Joe Brennan | 10/28/2001 09:16AM |
|
Re: eh Joe ......
|
Brian Corijn | 10/28/2001 10:04AM |
Can't leave you people alone for a minute 
|
Dietzsch | 10/28/2001 05:18PM |
|
Re: eh Joe ......
|
Siri | 10/28/2001 05:28PM |
|
Re: eh Joe ......
|
Torlef | 10/30/2001 05:35AM |
|
NATO
|
SuperKraut | 10/25/2001 11:02AM |
|
Japans constitution
|
kurt | 10/25/2001 12:20PM |
|
Re: Japans constitution
|
Rainer Bruns | 10/25/2001 01:16PM |
|
Re: NATO
|
Yuri IL\'IN | 10/25/2001 07:18PM |
|
Re: NATO
|
Yuri IL'IN | 10/28/2001 01:14PM |
|
Comment
|
SuperKraut | 10/29/2001 01:31PM |
|
Re: Japans constitution
|
walter M | 10/25/2001 02:34PM |
|
Re: Bundeswehr
|
Torlef | 10/25/2001 11:26PM |