Why do you believe the Japanese were so respectful and receptive to the Occupation and its democratizing reforms?

Although nominally an Allied effort, the postwar occupation of Japan (1945-1952) was essentially an American operation, overseen by the charismatic General Douglas MacArthur. Despite the savagery of World War II in the Pacific, the American occupiers were generally compassionate and generous while the Japanese, humbled and exhausted by defeat, proved receptive and even welcoming to their former enemies. The Americans were initially fired by a passion for reform and were dedicated to the thorough demilitarization and democratization of Japanese society.  The Japanese military was disarmed, settlers and soldiers were repatriated from the former empire, and war criminals (a group which the occupation decided should not include the Emperor Hirohito) were tried and punished.  Democratization policies ranged from a very popular land reform (which allowed cultivators to purchase their farms from large landlords) to strict antitrust regulation of industry and finance.  A new constitution was written for Japan by officials in the American occupation and presented to the Japanese government for translation and enactment.  Although The document has been widely praised for its progressive guarantees of rights and freedoms (and the Japanese have chosen not to amend it over the last sixty years), critics have argued that Japan was “forced to be free” by its American occupiers.

After 1947, the occupation rapidly scaled back its programs of democratization and sweeping institutional change. Policymakers in Washington, insistent that Japan be rehabilitated as a U.S. ally in the developing Cold War in Asia, dictated a substantial shift in occupation policy from reform to reconstruction. As the focus shifted to economic recovery and social stabilization, the occupation supported Japanese remilitarization, led crack-downs on left-wing politicians and union activists, and bolstered conservative political forces and corporate interests. Critics on the left called this change in occupation policy the “reverse course” and suggested that the Americans ended up betraying the Japanese people: while the occupiers promised sweeping democratic reform, they ultimately just buttressed the conservative status quo. The long-term impact of the American occupation, and particularly the consequences of the decisions to impose a constitution on Japan, leave Emperor Hirohito on the throne, and undertake the “reverse course,” is still actively debated by Japanese and U.S

Explanation:

i can't beat you to a pulp if i'm not close enough.