Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

History HubΒ  permalink

German and Japan post war constitutions

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Friday, 25th March 2011

  Both had it written prohibiting overseas military action. Firstly was this unprecendented? Or was the precedent set in the WW1 armistice? Also the US ensured that the Japanese Emperor was no longer seen as a demi god in the new constitution. This is a direct interference in a nation's culture and history. I am sure they would not like it if something similar was imposed on the US.
  
  Were they imposed on them by the US (or US led allies in Germany) as part of the armistice? Or was it engineered by the allies so that it was the new administration that agreed to it and not imposed by 'outsiders'? Reason I asked could it be propaganda for future nationalists to rebel against the government and over foreign interference. Wasnt that what Hitler did in his rise to power?

  Link to this forum: German and Japan post war constitutions

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 25th March 2011

  from what i have read both were self imposed restrictions
  
  who can blame them after the casualties they suffered in ww2
  
  slightly ironic as both countries had probably the best troops in ww2 and could contribute greatly to the mad world we now live in
  
  st
  

  Link to this forum: German and Japan post war constitutions

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 26th March 2011

  The Japanese were releived to be allowed to keep the emperor at all.
  
  It's probably benefitted both countries big time - it left the wartime Allies paying much of the bill for their defences. About time BAOR was discontinued - costs us a fortune for no post-Cold War good reason.

  Link to this forum: German and Japan post war constitutions

  Report message3

Back to top