The problem was not leaving Germany, the problem was to leave it in a state where a new war seemed like a plausible alternative.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑30 Oct 2019 12:13Hi mikegriffith1,
You ask of Japan, "Why not just go home and leave them alone?"
Like we did with Germany after WWI. This was not, I would humbly suggest, a great success!
Also, the international table set by the anglo-saxon powers after WW2 was no less discriminatory, it just gave a proper place for Germany and Japan, without whom a global balance (=western dominance) could not be achieved. If you get everything in peace, you don't want to go to war. But if you defeat a worthy opponent and deprive him of the chance to prosper, war is inevitable.
The US brought relative peace, freedom and stability to the world after WW2 by instituting free trade and abolishing colonial empires, thus making space for Germany and Japan, and seriously set back UK, the low countries and France. The SU / Eastern bloc was never a real competitor in economic terms.
The main problem with the WW1 and the peace treaties that followed was that the European colonial powers overreacted and wanted to extend their dominance, or in other words, wanted to win history once and for all. They didn't realize the historical necessity to step back after winning the war. They didn't realize that it was the very reason that started it. That's why we don't recall the WW1 as the most important historical event of the century, because we didn't learn a thing from it.
So they achieved little more than a ceasefire, and they sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
Had they been more far-sighted and realized that Germany (and A-H Empire, for that matter) had to prosper unarmed, international power had to be channeled into soft power institutions and economic relations, there would have been no need to occupy Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.