Germany and Japan

[Redistribute the Rep]

Why do Germany and Japan have such large economies today despite losing World War II?

[tuwix]

Because they have many people and their elites wanted to be dominant power in the world. They were unable to do it militarily then they tried to do it economically.

[Rugged Collectivist]

They were propped up by competing superpowers to use against each other.

[Five Year Plan]

Because they have many people and their elites wanted to be dominant power in the world. They were unable to do it militarily then they tried to do it economically.

I don't think the "powerful people wanted things" answer really explains much, in the absence of an explanation of how those powerful people got that power, and how they acquired more of it. We would call this more elaborate answer a materialist explanation of power.

[Alexios]

Both of them were already highly industrialized prior to WW2 and continued to possess the infrastructure and populations necessary to regain their industries after the war. As devastating as the war was to them, it's not like their entire populations were wiped out; they could still recover.




They were propped up by competing superpowers to use against each other.

This is a pretty bad exaggeration.

[motion denied]

My two cents:

In 1936 the fascist government of Japan institutes a law that raises difficulties in importing and prohibited foreign production on Japanese soil. It affected mainly US automobile industries and benefited State-run Datsun (today's Nissan).

After the Korean War in 1953, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) classifies automobile production first priority and resolves to support any national enterprise: 1) development of global strategic plans against enemies in world market; 2) taxation to protect national capital; 3) loans to national capital; 4) encouragement of concentration; 5) rationalization of car parts production; 6) development of infra-structure (example: in 1960 there weren't motorways, in 1970 there were 649km); 7) high-tech research in diverse sectors.

In said conditions, the new way of organizing exploitation arose (what would be known as ohnism, toyotism etc) mainly in Toyota. With high-tech, astonishing rhythm of labour and efficiency, Japanese industries were able to compete in world market. The avoidance of waste, the fluidity, the end of big fordist industries (that of the 'mass-worker'), outsourcing, boss friendly unions (after the ruthless disbandment of combative workers); in one word, flexible accumulation (David Harvey)...

In short, severe attack to the proletariat allied with the State and trade-unions. Also loans from the US and stock-market boom.

[Luís Henrique]

Why do Germany and Japan have such large economies today despite losing World War II?

The logic is the opposite. Those countries fought and lost WWII because their economies needed space to grow, space that was denied them by the existing imperialist arrangement.

WWII destroyed that imperialist arrangement, and in the post-war order the restraints that marred the growth of Japanese and German economies - and prompted them into war - no longer exist.

Luís Henrique

[human strike]

They were propped up by competing superpowers to use against each other.


The logic is the opposite. Those countries fought and lost WWII because their economies needed space to grow, space that was denied them by the existing imperialist arrangement.

WWII destroyed that imperialist arrangement, and in the post-war order the restraints that marred the growth of Japanese and German economies - and prompted them into war - no longer exist.

Luís Henrique

Basically these two things. It has a lot to do with geo-politics. The United States post-WW2 was very interested in rebuilding German and Japanese influence in their respective regions due in turn to the US' influence over the two states and the importance of central Europe and far-east Asia in geo-politics.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

My two cents:

In 1936 the fascist government of Japan institutes a law that raises difficulties in importing and prohibited foreign production on Japanese soil. It affected mainly US automobile industries and benefited State-run Datsun (today's Nissan).

After the Korean War in 1953, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) classifies automobile production first priority and resolves to support any national enterprise: 1) development of global strategic plans against enemies in world market; 2) taxation to protect national capital; 3) loans to national capital; 4) encouragement of concentration; 5) rationalization of car parts production; 6) development of infra-structure (example: in 1960 there weren't motorways, in 1970 there were 649km); 7) high-tech research in diverse sectors.

In said conditions, the new way of organizing exploitation arose (what would be known as ohnism, toyotism etc) mainly in Toyota. With high-tech, astonishing rhythm of labour and efficiency, Japanese industries were able to compete in world market. The avoidance of waste, the fluidity, the end of big fordist industries (that of the 'mass-worker'), outsourcing, boss friendly unions (after the ruthless disbandment of combative workers); in one word, flexible accumulation (David Harvey)...

Aside from incorrect use of fascism...

By 1930 the Japanese economy was already dominant in the region, but this was the era of the depression and protectionism was a strong current the world over. However, there were shortages of food and many goods even before this, due to rapid population growth and poorly utilised agriculture. Thus followed the obvious eyeing of strategic resources in Manchukou, to increase industrialisation. The United States sanctions against Japan further spurned this trend towards militarism (particularly the severe shortage of petroleum products).

In the immediate post-war era, however, these protectionist measures which had previously been rejected were tolerated, because the practical benefit of allowing most of these nations to industrialise was overall more beneficial than throttling such efforts would benefit, say, the United States (and obviously, they didn't want the Soviets to increase their influence). Germany, already in the category of the most advanced industrialised countries before the war, was then allowed to reforge. These projects extended not only to tolerating strong state-directed industrial efforts and protectionism in Japan and Germany, but France, Italy and so on.

In all those countries, large grants and generous subsidies allowed a rapid industrial recovery. Had the United States pressed for a more laissez-faire attitude, this probably would not have happened (something that had throttled French industrialisation efforts in the late 1800's and early 1900's and put them at a disadvantage during WWII).

Infrastructure spending in Japan remains today a large bloated subsidy sector, this goes particularly to road building schemes and further promotes the expanding private motoring (Japan is one of the very few places where tramway systems and significant railway service and line cuts have persisted after 1980). These construction programmes are little more than handouts to the construction companies. The 1987 privatisation of the state railways (which were nationalised in 1906-07, drawing on the experience in Italy of 1905) was with the expressed purpose of destroying the militant railway union Kokuro.

However, the Japanese protectionism is no longer very significant, though some of its foundations remain in place. The Nixon government, enraged that Japanese vehicles were flooding the American market whereas the Japanese were not consuming the bloated malfunctioning pieces of offal that GM and Chrysler churned out put heavy pressures on the Japanese government, even threatening trade sanctions; the Japanese government responded with significantly relaxed import taxation and decreasing subsidies and involvement in the export sector. This reversal took place during the early 1980's, and gradually lead to the property price bubble bursting, and the Japanese economy has never recovered; meanwhile, the oppression of workers and the precarious temporary employment have increased further.

To some extent, there are many parallels with the economic system of the SSSR in some regards. Large conglomerates offer free housing for their employés, free care and ancillary facilities. This is roughly similar to the Soviet industrial ministries, which provided the same services. Naturally, neither did it out of the goodness of their hearts. But such methods falling out of favour, partially due to competition and the realisation that a lot more can be gotten away with, and the decline of this "corporate welfare" is not made up by a growth in general social welfare; Japanese social welfare is tremendously ineffective and limited (though nevertheless the Japanese nationalists have a go at the Koreans and Chinese for being benefits scroungers, somehow).

(as an aside, the general outline for modern Japan's road ways plan was drawn up by British supervisors in the 1950's - this is evident in the design of the urban motorway viaducts, which are heavily indebted to the design of the M4 London Extension projected from the Chiswick Flyover to Heathrow Junction).

[Jolly Red Giant]

Both Germany and Japan were not allowed to run an extensive military (confined to domestic actions like breaking strikes) and as a result had billions that would normally have been wasted on military expendure to invest in more production industrial manufacturing and research and development. As a result both countries stole a march on their competitiors in technological development and industrial expansion.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Both Germany and Japan were not allowed to run an extensive military (confined to domestic actions like breaking strikes) and as a result had billions that would normally have been wasted on military expendure to invest in more production industrial manufacturing and research and development. As a result both countries stole a march on their competitiors in technological development and industrial expansion.

Germany and Japan both have fairly large and modern armies. Germany is in NATO...

[Jolly Red Giant]

Germany and Japan both have fairly large and modern armies. Germany is in NATO...
Not after WW2 - the twenty or so years after the war when both countries were prevented from military expansion facilitated a massive industrial expansion that was able to exploit the post-war boom and position both countries as the current power-houses of the advanced capitalist world.

[Blake's Baby]

There's more traction in that idea than that they were deliberately built up by the US. The UK received probably 50% more aid than West Germany in the post war period and it's no-where near as economically successful as Germany.

[exeexe]

After the war there was a high demand for everything. So if you are provided capital (from the US) it should be easy to get business going.

And then Germany made the Euro currency work for them, in such that the Euro were more an obstacle for the less developed countries like Spain and Greece. This in some way transfer money from countries like Greece and Spain to countries like Germany

Also Germany has the Ruhr area
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0708/yongho/yongho2.html
Which is a highly industrialised area with a huge deposit of coal.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Just to outline the scale of the difference in military expenditure (I hope my attempt at a table works) Figures in US$billions based on value of US$ in 1986

Country 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

USA 69 168 209 196 288
UK 23 29 26 29 35
France 11 22 21 28 34
Japan 4 4 7 14 22
W. Germany 0 20 21 27 32

The key years were between 1950 and 1960 when each year Germany and Japan were saving tens of billions that was invested in industry instead of armaments.

Just for current comparison - the USA spends almost double today what it did in 1990 and Germany spends double today what it did in 1970.

[Hagalaz]

Both of them were already highly industrialized prior to WW2 and continued to possess the infrastructure and populations necessary to regain their industries after the war. As devastating as the war was to them, it's not like their entire populations were wiped out; they could still recover.




This is a pretty bad exaggeration.

With respect that is no exaggeration at all.
The Marshall Plan was enacted to get West Germany and Japan back on their feet as allies against the USSR.

[Blake's Baby]

How come the UK got 50% more money that Germany due to the Marshall Plan, but didn't develop its economy to outstrip Germany's? Honestly, it's like you didn't take any notice of what every said above.

[Luís Henrique]

(as an aside, the general outline for modern Japan's road ways plan was drawn up by British supervisors in the 1950's - this is evident in the design of the urban motorway viaducts, which are heavily indebted to the design of the M4 London Extension projected from the Chiswick Flyover to Heathrow Junction).

That's curious. I wonder how does that relate to the fact that the Japanese drive in the left lane, just like the British...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Germany and Japan both have fairly large and modern armies. Germany is in NATO...

And military expending often stimulates capital accumulation, instead of hindering it.

For instance, the US, which is even more succesfull economically than Japan or Germany, has built its whole economy around what their last sane president, Eisenhower, first called "military-industrial complex".

Luís Henrique

[Hagalaz]

How come the UK got 50% more money that Germany due to the Marshall Plan, but didn't develop its economy to outstrip Germany's? Honestly, it's like you didn't take any notice of what every said above.

Britain had to rebuild it's military to include a nuclear deterrent. They also had to pay back the enormous loans floated to them. Yes,the US loaned them money to pay back their loans.

[Luís Henrique]

Britain had to rebuild it's military to include a nuclear deterrent. They also had to pay back the enormous loans floated to them. Yes,the US loaned them money to pay back their loans.

The British economy also had structural problems that dated from well before WWII, and which weren't solved by it. Plus, it had an empire that was unmade by the war, something that Germany and Japan were trying to build, but didn't actually have had for many years before.

Among the structural problems of British economy, the fact that its industries were started at the time of concurrential capitalism, and were consequently smallish or resulted from complicated, unplanned mergers, resulting in much inefficiency.

Luís Henrique

[The Red Star Rising]

Why do Germany and Japan have such large economies today despite losing World War II?
Massive pumping of funds and materiel into their systems and lack of any further devastation to push them back down again. For Germany, both the Soviets and the Americans wanted a potent buffer state between their two pacts, though not too strong for Germany to not be easily slapped down again if someone wanted to play the national humiliation card again and go for round three.

I will note that proportionally; Germany at least has a substantially smaller economy than it used to.

Before Hitler annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia his German nation had access to 14.7% of the world's economy.

Modern Germany commands less than a tenth. And of course, modern Germany is militarily the least imposing of any of the unified German states relative to it's time period, and thankfully the German people are very much unwilling to go to war again.

Japan had a meagre 3.5% so I would say that Japan at least is actually more potent from an economic standpoint than it used to be. Notably, Japan was never invaded (thankfully; the alternatives of starving out or invading Japan would have, optimistically, killed a third of the population and result in the deaths of millions of soldiers on all sides in the case of invasion, and likely Soviet Hokkaido at the very least) and generally strategic bombing is not a particularly good way to destroy a country's economy or will to resist. Japan's military factories; largely buried where all the B-29s in the world couldn't crack them, came out of the war mostly intact, so whereas Germany had to rebuild from Scratch, when America turned Japan into it's primary pivot into Asia, Japan had a base to work of of.

With none of the major participants in the cold war or the former Axis nations being suicidal enough to wage a third world war, both Japan and Germany could rebuild themselves peacefully. Due to their importance to the cold war, they were prioritized for aid, and furthermore lacked the burden of having colonies in a time when 18th-19th century colonialism was on it's way out. Thus avoiding the hobbling that losing their colonies gave France and especially Britain, and keeping them out of pointless wars over futile attempts at retaining colonies. Finally, there was a certain optimistic attitude about a new beginning for the countries that I think shouldn't be totally discounted.

Italy on the other hand, was not considered particularly important to either camp and had to suffer through a grueling campaign all across the peninsula that resulted in tremendous destruction. So the third party of the Axis would never experience the rapid growth it's former partners did. Axis minors such as Bulgaria fell under the Iron Curtain, Japan's ally in Siam ducked out before any serious retaliation fell upon it, and Finland had a sort of defacto induction into the Soviet bloc under finlandization. Also Finland is small yo.


All in all, Germany and Japan had a very favorable peace, whereas their other allies most decidedly did not or were held back by demographic factors or simply not considered worth the bother of propping up.

Also, semi-related but also rather off topic:

I'd also note that the Axis actually, in a somewhat twisted sense; succeeded. The Axis challenged the old Imperial order (in the hopes of replacing it with their Imperial order), seeking to destroy the last vestiges of the Victorian world and replace it with their own world. Though they certainly didn't dominate the new world, the old orders of colonial western Europe crumbled, the legacy of post-imperial China was settled in Mao's favour; and the Soviet Union and United States, both frequently considered to be outside of the western European imperial sphere, ended up dominating world affairs for decades to come. The Axis did create a new world, just not the one they wanted.