> Or maybe traced to WW2. Let's not forget what Japan did to get the US involved at all.

But wasn't the point of Marshall Plan to not repeat what Treaty of Versailles led to? If you keep demanding an eye for an eye the wars will never end. It does not justify what US did to Japan or other countries.

> But wasn't the point of Marshall Plan to not repeat what Treaty of Versailles led to?

Yes, plus the danger from the USSR.

> If you keep demanding an eye for an eye the wars will never end.

Never do an enemy a small injury. From a realpolitik point of view, either make them a friend or smash them for good.

> Never do an enemy a small injury. From a realpolitik point of view, either make them a friend or smash them for good

The strategy used to great effect by Rome.

This is a narrative that was taught in my high school. My college professors explained how wrong it was. Germany, despite the reparations demanded by the treaty, was in much better shape after WWI than WWII. The first world war ended without cities being leveled, and with German industry largely intact. By comparison Germany after WWII was in literal ruins, and ceased to exist as a unified country. The Marshall Plan's spending on German reconstruction actually didn't meet the figure Germany had to pay on reparations. We didn't repeat what the Treaty of Versailles led to because Germany was obliterated and split in two.

Also, I'm not sure how this leads to Japan. Japan broke the Washington Naval treaty (related to but separate from the Treaty of Versailles) which was meant to prevent a naval arms race.

I don't think what the US did was as bad as Versailles (which was a disaster). And I don't see how it was eye for an eye. Japan attempted global domination and genocide with their friend Nazi Germany. Eye for an eye implies an equal punishment, what could be equal to that? Certainly not restrictions on semiconductor development and forced currency rebalancing. Lets keep things in context here.

> If you keep demanding an eye for an eye the wars will never end. It does not justify what US did to Japan or other countries.

What are they teaching in school these days?

The funny thing is that the US tried to install two different post war governments, one before the "fall of china", the other after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Course

As for influence lasting decades after, I am still searching for a reason that the Japanese would have benefited from signing the Plaza Accord. Anyone have one?

From what I heard, it was not that rosy. But US needed a base for the Korean war. That gave Japan some leverage.

War occupations are never rosy, I didn't mean to paint it that way. But you could certainly make the argument it was rosy compared to the Japanese occupation of China.

My first reaction is that the implication the Korean war was somehow being planned by the US at the time of the Japanese surrender is some crazy revisionist propaganda.

But can you elaborate on what you are trying to say and what supports it?

see e.g. "Reverse Course"

Is it that hard to provide a proper link or reference and a hint why I should bother?