What was Japan s strategic culture like before and after World War II?

In general, the "independent system of command" from the beginning of the First Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War to the early Showa period basically did not become a point of contention in political and military confrontation. On the contrary, during the Taisho period and the early Showa period, Japan's politics and military maintained a relationship of coordination and priority, and the principle of military subordination to politics was basically embodied. After World War I, the Japanese military realized through the investigation of the war in Europe that the future war must be a "total war", and it is necessary to mobilize all the people to participate, and it is necessary to mobilize all the forces of the country to participate in the war, and this will be inseparable from the support and guarantee of the political party, and the military is aware of the necessity of maintaining a coordinated relationship with the country.

Strategy (military strategy in the narrow sense) is supposed to serve strategy, but it has become a strategy that is coerced by strategy, and strategy is forced to serve strategy. In On War, Clausewitz put forward the principle that "war is an extension of politics." <>

After the thirties of the last century, in the process of driving Japan's politics to the right, the group of generals and colonels (officers with the rank of captain who graduated from military academies) in the Japanese army played a decisive role. And this peculiar phenomenon is closely related to the ancient Japanese culture of "Shimokoshang". Most of the soldiers of the Japanese military academy group come from the middle and lower strata of society, are gifted and intelligent, diligent and motivated, and have become social elites through personal efforts, and have strong ambitions for expansion and personal aspirations, but they have lived and studied in military academies and academies from the army primary school to the army university and the naval academy since childhood.

This is for military experts.

The best strategic option is to abandon war ambitions and gain economic benefits, as they did after World War II.

As early as 100 years ago, the British were no longer focused on acquiring land, and it was enough to get the most out of themselves through ** and economic policies, without having to bear the cost of governance. The United States is also a master in this regard, the United States has fought many wars since World War II, and has never been committed to expanding its own territory, but is committed to building a dollar system, building a world economic, trade and security system dominated by the United States, and building a new international order, which is enough for US hegemony.

After World War II, Japan gradually learned this point, and through economic and trade policies, it built an Asian "flying geese" system, and became the world's second largest economy. If they had adopted this policy before World War II, Japan might have realized the so-called "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" long ago, but unfortunately they chose military adventure and aggression, and in the end they were defeated.

It's just that they are too impulsive.