How did the Japanese approach to war compared to the German approach

Explanation:

Japan has struggled with the legacies of its imperial aggression for decades.[1] Neither domestically nor internationally has the nation been able to find a formula which would put the so-called “history problem” behind it. Germany, in contrast, seems to have been very successful at confronting the problem of the Nazi past. Its neighbors do not fear the country and the “German problem”—once Europe’s biggest worry—no longer defines the geopolitics of the region. Why is this the case? And why do we observe the differences in how the two nations approached their aggressive histories? The answer usually goes something like this: “Germans have honestly reflected on their past, apologized for it, and paid their dues. The Japanese have not.” From this a prescription typically follows: if reconciliation is to take place in East Asia, Japan needs to be more like Germany.

I do not object to German-Japanese analogies and the discussion of their memory cultures in principle. Neither do I disagree with the efforts to push Japan to better address its legacies of rampant militarism. Yet, I find that much of the current German-Japanese comparative discourse operates on assumptions that are unwarranted.[2] In my view, this leads to gross oversimplifications. The purpose of this essay is to point out some of these problems, and to offer a few thoughts on how Germany and Japan can be compared, and where such comparisons reach their useful limits.

the answer is states.

question: write a report analyzing through articles of confederation.

answer: the articles of confederation the united states constitution was written when the people feared strong government the new nation needed some kind of organization to hold states together to them fend off future attacks and make a stronger support system through the states and people the states bonded through a friendship that best served as a defense against a invasion and states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations the strengths were that the congress has the highest power in the nation because of   fear of monarchy congress had the sole power to declare war and assign treaties disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress and weaknesses were the lack of power given to congress the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws if a state did not support a federal law that state could simply ignore it congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade.

explanation: so like every argument they have strengths and weaknesses but in this case there were more weaknesses but they managed o get through it and make an agreement

question answered by

(jacemorris04)