when did the US occupation of Japan begin

[lord of the mark]

1945 of course, but exactly when?

When US troops first took control of Japan on the ground? Or a few months earlier, when the US established an effective naval blockade, and full control over the air?

[chequita guevara]

I'd say as soon as Japanese soldiers began obeying Allied orders.

[Dis]

I know it's only wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Japan

first thing that came up on a google search

cool pic

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'd say as soon as Japanese soldiers began obeying Allied orders.

So the mere fact of an effective US sea blockade and total US control of the airspace did NOT constitute occupation?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So the mere fact of an effective US sea blockade and total US control of the airspace did NOT constitute occupation?

Is there an added twist to this question that I'm not seeing? Obviously blockade and airspace control are not occupation, because nobody is doing any occupying. Occupation begins with civil authority is usurped, de jure or de facto, by a foreign or enemy army.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Is there an added twist to this question that I'm not seeing? Obviously blockade and airspace control are not occupation, because nobody is doing any occupying. Occupation begins with civil authority is usurped, de jure or de facto, by a foreign or enemy army.

There may be an added twist, yes

But meanwhile I can add you to the list of folks who think blockade and air space control are not occupation?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
There may be an added twist, yes

But meanwhile I can add you to the list of folks who think blockade and air space control are not occupation?

Given that an occupation requires an exertion of civil authority by a foreign force, blockades and airspace control do not constitute occupation unless they are somehow accomplishing civil control and civil duties - government, police patrols, and so on - exclusively from sea and air. Generally, an army or ground force of some kind is necessary to exert the kind of power that an occupation entails. Merely blockading a foreign country isn't occupation, because while the blockade might have some effect in dictating foreign policy to the blockaded state, the fleet is ultimately engaging in coercive diplomacy and not actually exerting state power in lieu of the state itself.

The ICJ puts it more simply:

...territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Considerations of army/navy/airforce are immaterial. It is not the branch of service used, but rather the way in which the branch is used to exert power, that determines whether it is an occupying force. Planes and boats are generally not sufficient in and of themselves to exert the kind of authority needed to constitute occupation.

[lord of the mark]

note well, while the US blockade of Japan consisted entirely of a naval blockade, a blockade can be accomplished using a combination of forces. For example Germany during WW1 was blockaded using ground AND naval forces.

[Cyclotron]

I don't think that's particularly relevant. Regardless of what you call it (blockade, etc.) it either fits or does not fit the criterion for an occupation. If the foreign force actually exerts authority in the region, it is under occupation.

A blockade, regardless of the troops used, is generally coercive diplomacy rather than occupation. Whether the troops are on boats or not isn't really important.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I don't think that's particularly relevant. Regardless of what you call it (blockade, etc.) it either fits or does not fit the criterion for an occupation. If the foreign force actually exerts authority in the region, it is under occupation.

A blockade, regardless of the troops used, is generally coercive diplomacy rather than occupation. Whether the troops are on boats or not isn't really important.

I dont disagree, I'm merely elucidating.

[Cyclotron]

I'm not very fond of this twist-withholding, so I'll just start shooting in the dark.

My guess at this point is that you intend to somehow use our responses to argue that the Israeli occupation of territory X is not, in fact, an occupation, or in some other way attempt to paint one or more of us as hypocrites with regards to the occupied/disputed terminology debate.

Unless I've missed my guess entirely. It's really the only twist I can think of at present. If I'm wrong then I have really no idea where you're headed with this.

[Cyclotron]

Okay, here's a non-Israel guess. You are going to in some way argue that, based on other 'occupations' involving air and naval elements, Japan was already occupied by the time we A-bombed them, and thus we were wrong to do it.

Actually, I hope you're arguing the Israel one, because this one is pretty far fetched.

[lord of the mark]

ding, ding, ding!

Actually I was hoping to get MORE people, especially certain select individuals, to sign on before giving the twist away.

And the territory in question, of course, is the Gaza Strip, where the question of whether Israel is still the occupier, and has responsibilities of an occupier, is a matter of dispute and a very live issue. Note this is not the occupied/disputed debate, but a seperate debate occupied/no longer occupied.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually I was hoping to get MORE people, especially certain select individuals, to sign on before giving the twist away.

Ah come on, it was readily apparent as soon as you asked him to sign on

[PLATO]

The occupation of Japan started when Dad got there. It ended when he left.