U.S. policy was a joint directive of the State Department, War Department, and Navy Department issued via radio on August 29, and was brilliantly implemented by Marshal MacArthur.

Americans have every reason to be proud of the role they have played in running Japan since victory. The policy of the United States was a joint directive of the State Department, War Department, and Navy Department issued via radio on August 29, and was brilliantly implemented by Marshal MacArthur. However, the reasons for pride are often obscured by partisan praise or criticism in American newspapers and radio stations. Few people who have a sufficient understanding of Japanese culture are able to determine whether a given policy is appropriate or not.

A major issue at the time of Japan's surrender was the nature of the occupation. Should the victorious nation make use of the existing government, even including the emperor, or should it be scrapped? Should the administration of each county and city be run under the command of U.S. military government officials? The occupation of Italy and Germany was carried out by establishing A.M.G. (Allied Military Government) headquarters in each region as part of the fighting forces, leaving local administrative power in the hands of Allied administrators. At the time of the victory over Japan, A.M.G. officials in the Pacific still expected Japan to establish such a system of rule. The Japanese also don't know how much administrative responsibilities they can retain. The Potsdam Declaration simply stated: "The locations on Japanese territory designated by the Allied Powers must be occupied to ensure the fundamental objectives we have hereby stated", and that "the attempt to deceive and wrongly lead the Japanese people in their desire to conquer the world must be permanently eliminated" authority and power”.

The instructions issued by the Departments of State, War, and Navy to General MacArthur made major decisions on the above sections and received the full support of General MacArthur's command. The Japanese would be responsible for the administration and reconstruction of their country. "The Supreme Commander will exercise his authority through the agencies of the Government of Japan and other agencies, including the Emperor, so long as it furthers the objectives of the United States of America . The Government of Japan will, under the direction of the Supreme Commander (General MacArthur), MacArthur's management of Japan was therefore quite different from the Allied management of Germany or Italy. It was purely a high command, utilizing all levels of Japanese bureaucracy from top to bottom. Notices from the High Command are issued to the Imperial Japanese Government, not to Japanese nationals or residents of certain prefectures and cities. Its mission is to set the work objectives of the Japanese government. If a Japanese cabinet minister thinks it is impossible to implement, he can resign, but if his suggestion is correct, he can also modify the order. The management method of

is a bold measure. But from the perspective of the United States, the benefits of this policy are very obvious. As General Hilldring said at the time: "The benefits of using the Japanese government's occupation method are huge. If there is no Japanese government to use, we will inevitably have to directly operate and manage a 70 million All the complex institutions necessary for a populous country. Their language, habits, and attitudes are different from ours. By purifying and utilizing the Japanese government, we save time, manpower, and material resources. In other words, we ask the Japanese to organize their own country. , and we are only providing specific guidance. "

When this directive was enacted in Washington , many Americans were still worried that the Japanese might adopt an arrogant and hostile attitude, a nation that glared and waited for revenge and would passively resist all peace. plan. These fears later proved to be unfounded. The reason lies mainly in Japan's special culture, rather than in general truths about the politics and economy of defeated nations and countries. Perhaps no nation has been able to accept such a policy of faith so smoothly as Japan. In the eyes of the Japanese, this policy is a symbol of excluding humiliation from the harsh reality of defeat, prompting them to implement new national policies, and their ability to accept it lies in the unique character formed by their unique culture.

In the United States, we have constantly debated the leniency of the peace terms, but the real issue is not the leniency, but the severity that is enough to destroy the traditional and dangerous aggressive model and establish new goals. The choice of means should be based on the character of the country's citizens and the traditional social order. Prussian 's authoritarianism was deeply ingrained not only in family life, but also in the daily lives of citizens, which required some kind of peace terms for Germany. Wise terms of peace should be different for Japan than for Germany. Unlike the Japanese, the Germans do not think they owe a debt to society and history. They work hard not to repay endless debts or debts, but to avoid becoming victims. The father is an authoritative figure, just like other people who occupy a high position. According to the Germans, he "forces others to respect him" and feels uncomfortable if he is not respected. In German life, every generation of sons rebelled against their authoritative fathers in their youth, but when they grew up, like their parents, they eventually succumbed to a boring, passionless life. The highest peak in life is the period of youthful rebellion.

The problem in Japanese culture is not extreme authoritarianism. Almost all Western observers agree that Japanese fathers' care and affection for their children seem to be difficult to see in the West. Japanese children take it for granted that they have some real affection for their father, and openly boast about him, so that a slight change in the father's tone of voice will cause the child to act in accordance with his wishes. However, a father is by no means a strict teacher to young children, and youth is by no means a time for rebellion against parental power. On the contrary, the child enters youth and becomes a tame representative of family responsibility before the judgment of the world. The Japanese say that they respect their father "for practice" and "for training." In other words, the father, as the object of respect, is a superhuman symbol of hierarchy and correct behavior in dealing with people.

This attitude, learned early in childhood from contact with the father, became a pattern throughout Japanese society. Those who are at the top of the hierarchy and who are held in the highest esteem do not themselves hold arbitrary power. Officials at the head of the hierarchy do not exercise real power. From the emperor down to the bottom, there are advisers and hidden forces operating behind the scenes. The conversation between a leader of the Black Dragon Society -style ultra-nationalist group and a reporter from an English newspaper in Tokyo in the early 1930s most accurately illustrates this aspect of Japanese society. He said: "Society (of course, referring to Japan) is a triangle, one corner of which is fixed by the pin ." In other words, the triangle is on the table and is visible to everyone. The pins are invisible. The triangle sometimes deviates to the right, sometimes to the left, but always swings around a hidden axis. To borrow a common saying among Westerners, everything must be reflected in a "mirror". Strive not to reveal authoritarian power on the surface, and all actions show a gesture of loyalty to a symbolic status. This symbolic status often does not exercise real power. As soon as the Japanese discovered the unmasked source of power, they regarded it as exploitative and as incompatible with their system as they did the loan sharks and the nouveau riche.

Precisely because the Japanese viewed their society in this way, they were able to resist exploitation and injustice without becoming revolutionaries. They do not intend to destroy their social fabric. They can achieve the most radical changes, as they did in the Meiji era, without criticizing the system itself. They call this change "retrospection", that is, a return to the past. They are not revolutionaries. Among Western writers, some place their hope in Japan to launch a mass movement in terms of ideological , some exaggerate the Japanese underground forces during the war and expect them to take leadership on the eve of surrender, and some predict that radical policies will won the post-war elections, but they both grossly misjudged the situation. The following speech delivered by the conservative Prime Minister Baron Shitahara when forming the cabinet in October 1945 most accurately expressed the Japanese thoughts.

The new Japanese government has a democratic form that respects the will of all citizens...Since ancient times in our country, the emperor has regarded the people as his own will. This is the spirit of Emperor Meiji's Constitution. The democratic politics I am talking about can be considered to be the true embodiment of this spirit.

's explanation of democracy is completely meaningless to American readers.However, based on this retro interpretation, Japan will undoubtedly be able to expand the scope of citizens' freedom and enhance the welfare of its citizens more easily than based on Western ideology.