remember when........

[Carl Beck]

Moderator,

Will you please consider deleting this thread before it gets out of hand. I think you and everyone else who reads it understands where I'm coming from.

Chris Abbott

Hi Chris:

Why would a discussion of the development and growth of the Japanese Auto Industry get out of hand? Let's just not let it.

It's a tremendous success story, from cottage industry to Industrial Giant in 30 years. To many books to count, have been written about the subject. Even more fascinating was the Strategic Planning and execution of Tactics involved in that evolution. IMHO - we should all be encouraged to know more about it.

In the mid-50's the Japanese Auto Industry fully recognized that their domestic market was too small to support the mass production levels necessary to bring unit costs and thus consumer prices in Japan, down to affordable levels.

In 1957 Mr. Kawamata, as President of Nissan Motors, outlined his Strategic Plan For Nissan's Growth by exporting cars to the USA. (as did most of the Japanese Auto Industry - it wasn't just Nissan). With mass production, unit prices could be brought down, and a domestic auto market could be grown.

Nissan Motors moved with amazing speed from 1958 to 1970... to fully implement their export strategy in America. Indeed Nissan was establishing footholds in many other Countries around the world, but really nothing anywhere close to the export efforts to America.

If you have an interest in even earlier history - pre WW-II - One new book that I would recommend to anyone with an interest - is now available for purchase, translated into English from the original Japanese - on the Internet... is:

" William R. Gorham - An American Engineer in Japan" is a book originally written by the "William R. Gorham Memorial Committee in 1950 (his fellow Japanese Engineers), and recently translated into English by his Grandson Don Cyril Gorham. William R. Gorham went to Japan in 1918 and is credited by the Japanese Auto Industry with many significant contributions to their automotive success in general and Nissan Motors in particular.

You can order a copy of the book on-line at:

<a href=http://www.lulu.com/ TARGET=NEW> Lulu.com</a>

The main focus of the original Post was wining market share via "Quality" products - wasn't it? Another American is regarded as a prime factor in Japan's Total Quality Initiatives to this day. I believe that Japan still awards the "Deming Prize" for Total Quality Management to their highest achievers.

For that matter Nissan Motors Ltd. won a Deming Prize for Manufacturing in 59/60. Yes, it was Yutaka Katayama's following of the Deming Philosophy of Total Quality Management - that drove him to constantly lobby Nissan Japan, to design and build the specific cars his customers wanted in America... ie. Customer Driven Product Design.

If you want to see what influence Mr. K had, in the growth and development of Nissan Motors Ltd... you can read:

Akira Kawahara's "The Origin of Competitive Strength - Fifty Years of the Auto Industry in Japan and the US" (ISBN 4-431-70223-7), if your interested.

There is also an entire chapter devoted to Mr. K's accomplishments and influence in David Halberstam's "THE RECKONING". ( ISBN 0-688-04838-2). Ford compared to Nissan... a real eye opener!.

A fascinating subject for many of us... Some might see it as "Japan" vs. "America", but most of use see it as a successful partnership for both. Can you imagine what junk we might be driving today if the original Big Three had held their monopoly on auto sales in the US? (Vega, Pinto..yeiks!)

FWIW,

Carl B.

[ChrisA]

Hi Carl,

Sent you a PM.

I don't doubt the potentially great knowledge this thread COULD hold. But I see it also as a possible breeding ground for another argumentative slugfest between individuals with completely different backgrounds and upbringings.

Chris A.

[onuthin]

But I see it also as a possible breeding ground for another argumentative slugfest between individuals with completely different backgrounds and upbringings.

Chris A.

It doesn't matter if you are talking about Nissan vs Ford, Makita vs Craftman, Mercury vs Honda or anything where a foriegn company surpasses it's competitor you are are going to have a certain group of people that are going to be upset about job loss.It doesn't matter if thier competitor puts out a better product or service at a cheaper price all that matters to them is they are going to lose thier insurance, Built up vacation days, sick leave,annual pay raise ( whether they earned it or not ) and their retirement plan financed by their employer. American automakers lost their ability to stay in the running for the top when they let unions dictate to them whether they were in buisness to work for their employees or to stay competetive in the world market.

[jmortensen]

It doesn't matter if you are talking about Nissan vs Ford, Makita vs Craftman, Mercury vs Honda or anything where a foriegn company surpasses it's competitor you are are going to have a certain group of people that are going to be upset about job loss.It doesn't matter if thier competitor puts out a better product or service at a cheaper price all that matters to them is they are going to lose thier insurance, Built up vacation days, sick leave,annual pay raise ( whether they earned it or not ) and their retirement plan financed by their employer. American automakers lost their ability to stay in the running for the top when they let unions dictate to them whether they were in buisness to work for their employees or to stay competetive in the world market.

On that note: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060303/ap_on_bi_ge/dana_bankruptcy;_ylt=AgRnlyhhLXn..UUQJsKa.Xlu24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

You make it sound like The United States of America was 'looking after' Japan post-War just out of human kindness. Which is absolutely not the case is it?

[sarcasm]You're right. Carl totally forgot about the US's gulags and slave labor camps in Japan. We're such bastards.[/sarcasm]

Now let's try some truth. We wanted Japan as an ally against Russia in the Cold War (same with the European countries). So we boosted their economies in order to prevent the spread of communism. You may think that makes the US a bunch of self serving assholes, but whether we were acting in our own self interest, fighting communism, or trying to keep the seeds of another war from taking root by providing these countries with the ingredients for a successful economy, the US did a very very good and generous thing in Europe and Japan after the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_post-war_economic_miracle

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

[HS30-H]

Now let's try some truth.

I'm all for it!

Now, who's 'truth' shall we use........?

You may think that makes the US a bunch of self serving assholes, but whether we were acting in our own self interest, fighting communism, or trying to keep the seeds of another war from taking root by providing these countries with the ingredients for a successful economy, the US did a very very good and generous thing in Europe and Japan after the war.

"Very good and generous" - arguably so, yes. But from the perspective of my parents and grandparents, I think the view that it was 'expedient' for the USA to do what it did was more to the fore. Especially as the United Kingdom spent most of the latter half of the Twentieth Century paying back Lend-Lease. And that is what I was bringing to the discussion; a different perspective. Cue immediate plea for thread deletion........

But do you see why I questioned the bland simplification of the situation in Carl's post ( the part I quoted )? I don't believe it is historically correct or even fair to talk about Japan being "well treated" by the US in the aftermath of war without pointing out the main political, economic and strategic reasons for it too.

And before anyone chimes in with a reminder about American blood spilled on foreign land - I know and appreciate that ( and I've been to the cemeteries too ), so let's not make it a stupid "with us, or against us" argument - please? My sympathy lies with the ordinary man in the street and his family, whether British, American, Japanese, German or wherever. It is always 'John Doe and family' who suffer for geopolitics.

Having lived and worked in Japan, and having what I like to think of as half of my family being Japanese, I find it rather distasteful to see somebody implying that treating the Japanese "well" - just a matter of weeks after dropping fire on its cities - was somehow driven purely by the 'kind heart' of the victorious nation. And to then imply that this kind-heartedness is what has led to the overpowering of the US auto industry by the Japanese auto industry is just, well - ridiculously simplistic.

But if it pleases people to think that my dissent is part of my "agenda", then go ahead - be wrong.

Alan T.

[jmortensen]

Point taken. We should put our good deeds in context. Now think hard, and try to intellectually divorce yourself from the Japanese half of your family before answering. How do you suppose the Japanese would have treated America if we had surrendered unconditionally to Japan?

The only evidence we have is their treatment of the Chinese who they conquered: http://www.geocities.com/mustsellsoon/maruta/maruta.html

Or you could examine their belief in the idea that death was preferable to surrender (part of the bushido code of honor), and their application of that belief on American POWs during the Bataan death march. We gave them a new system of government and propped up their economy. They used our captured soldiers for target and bayonet practice on the side of the road.

In that light, yes we were "kind hearted". A hell of a lot more kind hearted than they were to those they conquered.

[HS30-H]

Now think hard, and try to intellectually divorce yourself from the Japanese half of your family before answering. How do you suppose the Japanese would have treated America if we had surrendered unconditionally to Japan?

I don't really need to "think hard" about it. From a very young age I had my uncle as a point of reference in my 'education' about wartime cruelty. He was in the Chindits under Orde Wingate, and was captured by the Japanese in Burma. I don't think I need to tell you what he went through, do I? Luckily, he managed to survive.......

But personally speaking, I find it hard to think in that 'we were kind to them, compared to what they would have done to us had we lost.....' frame of morality. As the victor of a war, you either judge the vanquished by your own code of justice and morality, or........what? I don't really want to see any implied justification for what might and could have been inflicted on the vanquished Japanese just because they would have been brutal in victory themselves. The victor gets to do the judging, after all.

I grew up with my uncle - influenced by his experiences as a POW - telling me that the Japanese were an inherently cruel, sadistic and cowardly race. I'm glad to say that I took his views with a large pinch of salt, and found - happily - from personal experience that his wild generalisation was not accurate or definitive. The people I met had moved on during the intervening 40 years or so - as indeed had the Americans, the British, the Germans and almost everybody else. And having lived with Japanese of his generation, and having talked with them about those times, I got a different perspective. The perspective of the 'ordinary' working / fighting man and his family you might say. I empathised to some extent.

Easy to see that the main difference between my uncle and the men who imprisoned him was what they were being told to do. The irony that he was captured in Burma ( I don't know how many thousand kilometres that was from his London home ) whilst taking the King's Shilling always seems to have escaped him. He seemed to think that it was naturally right for the British to defend their 'Empire'. He didn't give a damn that Japan might have had its own empirical ambitions, or that the British might have been just as cruel to the nations and peoples that it subjugated to win that Empire.

We gave them a new system of government and propped up their economy. They used our captured soldiers for target and bayonet practice on the side of the road.

More over-simplification. Effectively used only for emotive effect. Shall we judge the USA by asking the American Indians what they thought of "target practice", and do we throw Vietnam into the mix for good measure? ALL major nations have skeletons in their cupboards, don't they? The victors get to hide a lot more of their own.

We soon drift off topic don't we? I merely added a word of disagreement pointed at the implied subtext to the part of Carl's post that I quoted, and now we are here. I don't think I should have bothered. Politics on car forums never goes anywhere useful, does it?

Alan T.

[1 Bravo 6]

Well,

I'm afraid that I must agree with Chris A.

This is not really a subject for discussion on this site. Perhaps you should confine it to PM's.

You lot are on the verge of something that p**ses me off.

Rick.

:devious: :devious:

[jmortensen]

I'll drop it because you are right, this isn't the time or place. Ideally everyone should read the history from as many points of view as possible and decide for themselves.