Germany and Japan: A Comeback Story

Seven decades ago, in 1945, Germany and Japan were two devastated countries, with millions dead, their
cities in ruins and governed by occupation forces. Only 20 years later, Germany and Japan both were
among the strongest economic powers in the world.
Today, both are mature democracies and industrial countries with significant political clout. In the BBC’s
world-wide Country Ratings Poll, they annually rank high in popularity.
This comeback story seems nothing short of a miracle. The “miracle,” however, can be explained by three
crucial factors: U.S. support, good neighbors and a knowledge strategy are behind it. 3 CRUCIAL
FACTORS for the MIRACLE: 1. U.S. support, Genuine remorse, Being knowledge societies.
1. U.S. support
The major victor of the war, the United States, was a rich country even in 1945, when much of the rest of
the world was destroyed. To revive markets for the export of U.S. products, the U.S. government made a
strategic choice to invest in Japan and Germany.
From 1947 onward, the United States gave $13.3 billion in grants and loans to Germany and 15 other
European countries, as well as $2.44 billion to Japan. (use in automobile and technology industry)
Commercial considerations aside, it took exceptional political wisdom and leadership on the part of the
United States to pursue a policy of generosity towards erstwhile enemies – not least considering that about
half a million Americans lost their lives in the war.
2. Good Neighbors / Genuine Remorse
Given the vastness of the atrocities committed by both Germany and Japan, it could not be assumed that
the countries the two axis powers had attacked would be ready for reconciliation anytime soon.
And yet, from 1957 onward, Japan was able to normalize relations with all its former enemies, whether in
Europe or East and Southeast Asia (except North Korea).
 By paying reparations
 Apologies, but they are not as upfront as Germany. Japan has tracked record of flip-flopping its
remorse from denying the Rape of Nanking in 2014 to even honoring the generals who headed
WWII.
Normalization with South Korea came in 1965 and with the People’s Republic of China in 1972, after
shifting recognition from the Republic of China on Taiwan.
For Germany, the recognition of the horror of the Holocaust (WWII) became a driver for reconciliation
efforts in particular with Israel and Jewish organizations from the moment of the founding of the Federal
Republic of Germany in 1949.
 Germany, the recognition of the horror of the Holocaust (WWII)
 Third Reich, Hitler not glorified.
 Upfront of their faults. They don’t glorify those leaders who instigate the war. And they did not support
the violence that is perpetuated. And the damage that was incur by Adolf Hitler and his Germany.
Their law are tailored not to glorify by third Reich and Hitler. Laws to not deny the happening in
Haulocost.
  Horrors of Holocaust are integrated in education. Teach that Haulocost is wrong, Hitler is wrong,
Germany was at fault. They don’t sugar coat history.
 Making no room for harmful revisionism

Germany’s re-integration into Europe took shape in the 1950s, by joining the European Economic
Community and entry into NATO. These were the critical steps to provide reassurance of Germany’s
genuine will to reconcile with its neighbors.
From the late sixities on, “Ostpolitik“ – or détente policy — was a tool also for normalizing relations with the
countries of Eastern Europe.
For both Germany and Japan, it was a combination of factors which made reconciliation possible. Probably
the most critical factor was genuine remorse, once the whole extent of the atrocities committed became
clear to the wider public during the war crime trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo.
Another cornerstone was simply the hope for a better future. People who had seen – or caused –
unimaginable suffering during the war needed a strong sense of direction.
Finally, the political – and existential — pressure exerted by the necessity to stand together, and alongside
the United States, against the Communist threat in Europe as well as in East Asia played a crucial role as
well.
In an environment where people easily might have wished for nothing but revenge, it required leaders wise
and bold enough to try to do what was unexpected but what was best for the people, to come to terms with
a painful past. Fortunately, such leaders were there when needed.
3. Knowledge societies
Prioritizing education and export their students in prestigious universities and get back to their country to
impart what they have learned and so they could get back fronm the loss and damage that was incur during
WWII.
Scientist, Engineers, and managers who knew how to build industries and get the economics back in
shape.
Education, Britain, Switzerland, Scandinavians good schools. Germany sent their youth in this competitive
school
Importing education.
Germans speak of 1945 as “zero hour” to express that things started from scratch. Possibly in Japan the
feeling was similar. In truth, it was far from a new beginning.
In both countries, society proved ready for reconstruction. Even though Nazism, fascism and militarism had
reigned, the values of democratic governance and individual freedom had sufficiently grown roots.
In both countries, people had learned the major precondition for the success of a modern society –
education. This dimension enabled both countries to develop sustainably. There also were scientists,
engineers and managers who knew how to build industries and get the economies back in shape.
RESULT?
All of this resulted in Japan being the (WEST) United States’ major security alliance partner in Asia and, as
a free market economy, the anchor for the development of the region.
Constitution written under heavy American influence. Article 9 (Pacifist Provision), in particular, bans both
war and any kind of standing military.
Article 9, Japan can’t constitutionally establish a military.
US Military Bases in Tokyo, Shizuoka, and Okinawa. Major standing city in Asia.

Germany, as the strongest economy in the European Union, became the engine of European development,
a dynamic that has become more clearly visible than ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Few remnants of past problems linger. One of those is to get Japanese–Korean relations right, as vocal
minorities in both countries pursue antagonistic agendas.
In Europe, there is concern about Germany steamrolling over the interests of weaker EU economies – one
reason why Berlin is very focused on maintaining close partnerships also with smaller countries in the
current crisis over Greece.
A tumultuous new world order
The bipolar world order of post-WWII times as well as the unipolar order of post-cold war days are
dissolving under the pressure of challenges, each of which has its own distinct nature.
In East Asia, China’s change from a poor, irrelevant communist country to the second-strongest economy
in the world and a robustly assertive power leads to the question of how to define its new regional and
global role.
In Europe, a strategy to deal with Russian efforts to reestablish a traditional sphere of influence has yet to
be found. The expansion of Islamist extremism in the Middle East threatens the values of democracy,
equality and freedom that the international system is built on.
Then, there are the more profound challenges such as climate change, the revolution in IT-guided industry,
pandemics, migration, water and energy supplies.
In order to find solutions to rapidly arising new problems acceptable to a majority of states, the world needs
to find a new order. Getting there is not so much a question of introducing new rules, as of a newly
structured system that may allow stability and opportunities for all.
Next steps for Germany and Japan
Both Japan and Germany are medium-sized powers with some, but not an overriding, influence on global
developments. They owe much of their postwar successes to strategies of balancing interests and
objectives between many and diverse partners.
Both countries might successfully apply the lessons they have learned to tackle the new tasks. The BBC’s
poll results are not the global response to German and Japanese friendly smiles. They reflect German and
Japanese soft power.
This soft power is based on the trust that both countries managed to establish in the seven decades since
the war. It is a trust in the competence of both countries to solve problems.
The fact that such trust could be built at all should give them today the confidence that they have the ability
– maybe not to work miracles but to devise strategies to deal with the condition in which they and their
neighbors and partners find themselves.
Germany and Japan’s Nuclear Reality
By any logic, Japan should be a vehemently anti-nuclear country by now. And yet Tokyo voters ultimately
voiced their support for a nuclear Japan as they supported the man who made clear his hopes to restart the
nation’s dormant reactors.
Former health minister Yoichi Masuzoe easily won last weekend’s Tokyo gubernatorial elections against
former Prime Minister Morihiro Hosoka whose campaign platform was to keep the country free of nuclear
power. Support for Masuzoe was also in effect a vote for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Liberal
Democratic Party, which views nuclear power as critical for sustainable economic growth.
Japan’s nuclear ambivalence has taken a while to brew, unlike in Germany, where Chancellor Angela
Merkel vowed to forsake nuclear power shortly after the 2011 Fukushima disaster and remains committed
to that policy.
But while all of Japan’s reactors are currently idle, Abe has repeatedly stated that nuclear energy remains
critical for his country to remain competitive in the global economy. That view is shared by much of the
nation’s leading business leaders, among others.
It is quite a surprise that this view persists despite continued leakage of contaminated water from the
Fukushima power plant, which was crippled as a result of a massive tsunami wave following a 9.0
magnitude earthquake.
Germany’s reaction to Fukushima
Germany, on the other hand, viewed Fukushima as the ultimate lesson for the country to reject nuclear
power altogether. The accident led Merkel and her conservative Christian Democratic Party to side with the
Green Party to shut down Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors that provided 18% of the country’s energy needs.
In order to offset that decline, Merkel has stepped up German efforts to develop alternative energy sources
including solar and offshore wind in the North Sea.
For Japanese anti-nuclear activists, Germany’s response to Fukushima is precisely what Japan should be
doing. Nuclear power has provided about 30% of Japan’s energy needs. However, the idling of the
country’s reactors has yet to jump-start investments in renewable technologies.
The hesitation to do so is due, in part, to the prime minister’s insistence that a re-powering of reactors
should be only a matter of time, not principle. In short, a question of the “when” – not the “if.” The LDP is
proposing to restart at least 12 reactors as an integral part of keeping Japan’s still fragile economic engine
on track.
Instead of using the nuclear disaster as an opportunity to make lemonade out of lemons, Japan is simply
squandering an opportunity to break new ground.
Turning away from nuclear and toward renewables
Of course, while some traditionalists are making the best of the change, Germany’s decision to vow against
the nuclear option is not without its critics.
For one, development of renewable energy supplies that can meet current industrial needs will take time. It
will also be a very expensive investment in the near-term and means higher energy costs for consumers.
The price tag to meet energy needs in Germany will rise significantly in the near term as well.
The Institute for Energy Research estimates that Germany’s electricity rate can increase by 10% this year
and rise another 30 to 50% over the next decade.
Still, the cost of continuing to depend on nuclear energy and not putting money into developing new energy
sources may be still higher in the longer term.
If nothing else, Fukushima has highlighted the risks of controlling nuclear reactors even with the best of
plans and highest of standards.
Meanwhile, not investing in alternative energy sources now and remaining petroleum-dependent has a
clear strategic disadvantage: Japan will remain dependent on resources from some of the world’s most
politically unstable regions.
Advances in fracking technology, if they really bear out in an environmentally safe and responsible fashion,
mean that both the United States and Europe will become less and less dependent on Middle Eastern oil,
as they are better able to tap into these natural gas supplies. That would leave Asia as the sole region that
will rely on imported petroleum at current levels.
Reconsider nuclear and reassess industrial policy
One of Japan’s hopes to offset some of its dependence on Middle Eastern petroleum is to tap into the
natural gas supply from the United States. U.S. gas supply is expected to exceed domestic demand within
the next decade and bilateral efforts to allow the United States to export excess gas to Japan are currently
underway.
That, however, would be a wasted opportunity for Japan. Given the continued slide of the Japanese
manufacturing sector, Japan can ill-afford to delay investing heavily in industries that could take its place.
Japanese carmakers have taken the lead in developing energy efficiency. Hence, the prospect of Japanese
companies becoming world leaders in renewable energy technology is hardly far-fetched.
Fukushima should be a wake-up call for Japan not only to reconsider its nuclear energy policy, but also to
reassess its future industrial priorities. This is not the time to rebuild what Japan has been. It should be an
opportunity to build up Japan to what it can be, despite the costs in the near term.
But in the near term, as Tokyo voters head to the polls, their support for Hosokawa will mean a resounding
yes for endeavors to keep Japan nuclear-free, while a vote for Masuzoe will spell yes for a resumption of
nuclear power dependence.