Now there was a man who needed to learn how to lose.
Great fanfic btw.
The Japanese Soldier Who Fought WWII for 30 Years
51–60 of 80 posts
Re: The Japanese Soldier Who Fought WWII for 30 Years
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you call him dumb. In his situation there are few ways to verify that Japan had indeed surrendered. If it really was an elaborate scheme by the Allied troops then he would have been called dumb for surrendering so easily.
His belief that the Allies would go through so much trouble to stop a group of people who had killed relatively few people over a 30 year period is what makes him dumb. What troop movements was he observing? What logistics was he disrupting? How effective could he possibly be gathering intelligence if he couldn't even report his findings to his superiors? Even if the war was still going, his contribution to the war e…
Hiroo Onoda may be dumb, but I believe you can't tell that based on this story. To suggest otherwise is myopic.
Apply Occam's razor: news of Japan's surrender is a (probably not uncommon) Allied trick vs. the US created a magic secret weapon that would force Japan -- a country so dedicated to winning they crash planes into boats -- to surrender shortly after Hiroo left it.
In Hiroo's Japanse solider's shoes, which seems more likely?
So, true, you'd think he'd eventually figure it out (i.e. give up), but perhaps his grip on reality became a skewed after living alone in a jungle for decades (i.e. he's made of tougher mettle than I am).
Still doesn't indicate dumb to me though.
(Edit: Added epiphanic id ests to last paragraph.)
Re: The Japanese Soldier Who Fought WWII for 30 Years
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well thanks for the compliment all the same! I'm not an economist, but I do have a keen interest in history, particularly WWII. Here's a link if you would like to read more about the Tiger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I#Combat_examples " Nah, the USA hasn't been laissez-faire in money for a long time. " - I only meant more laisse faire in comparison to Europe, and in a historical sense. I should've been more s…
If that policy's really derived from WWII I daresy they've completely missed the point. The Data Protection Directive wouldn't help if you Europe were to fall under Nazi control again. It's just a law that says the government can't process the data in certain ways, they still have the data though, and could start mining it by changing the law, or ignoring it. If they actually cared they wouldn't be gathering this dat…
"...but that's been changing in the recent decades since the FBI, NSA and others were founded."
I wouldn't exactly characterize the last 6-8 decades as "recent".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation...
Re: The Japanese Soldier Who Fought WWII for 30 Years
#54I love this story. I remember reading a very abridged version of it in one of my Super Fact Books when I was 8 or 9 (it omitted the fact that he murdered dozens of people, for instance). Still, he's an amazing (if very, very dumb) character.
With soldiers this dedicated to the cause though you have to think had there been no atomic bombs the world may have been a very different place.
Without the shock of the atomic bombings there would almost certainly have been more Japanese civilians dead before the end of the war, even discounting a landed invasion. By late 1945 the allied bombing campaign was sufficiently geared up to destroy entire cities on a recurring basis. It was as effective as the atomic bombings, it was merely a lot less efficient (hundreds of planes and crews instead of just one). Had Japan held off surrendering, and had that conventional bombing campaign continued much longer the destruction would have been far greater.
Had the allies then lacked the courage to mount a landed invasion and been satisfied with a negotiated peace instead of an unconditional surrender, Japan would have become a devastated country with few allies and many enemies, it would not have been rebuilt with foreign assistance and would almost certainly be a 3rd world nation or perhaps even a failed state today.
Re: The Japanese Soldier Who Fought WWII for 30 Years
#55> Among his list of things to do on his journey was to find “Onoda, a panda, and the Abominable Snowman”. Genius!
How'd he do on the other two?
Re: The Japanese Soldier Who Fought WWII for 30 Years
#56Blind conviction to your country is nationalism. I don't see how he can be seen as a hero for that. Sure what he did was amazing, but I wouldn't encourage such patriotic behavior.
It wasn't just blind conviction though, he was a professional soldier. It was war time, and his commanding officer sent him in to conduct guerrilla warfare in the jungles. He was expected to be there for a long time and operationally independent. "You are absolutely forbidden to die by your own hand. It may take three years, it may take five, but whatever happens, we’ll come back for you. Until then, so long as you h…
It was obvious his conviction that his country could not lose was based on faulty reasoning. Japan was inevitably going to lose, nuclear bomb or not. So I think his persistence was fueled by his blind allegiance to his country, most likely because he believed that his country was superior to all other countries because he was born in it. Professional or not, I think the primary motivation was his country, and not his training. Doing something that dedicated requires a firm belief in the purpose (unless you were retarded to some degree). Of course he may have been lied to, or misled into thinking his country was greater than it was. In any case this would be why blind allegiance is bad.
Re: The Japanese Soldier Who Fought WWII for 30 Years
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worse option: letting the other guy go to war, and you don't. Its called surrender and can be worse.
This is not always true. Almost all wars are started for "defensive" reasons and oftentimes those reasons are just lies told to drum up support for the war. The Nazi regime convinced ordinary people that they had to fight against an internal Jewish threat. That was a lie. If ordinary Germans had let "the other guy" go to war, nothing would have happened because there was no internal threat. Likewise, if Americans had…
Whether the other guy starts a war based on a lie or not is immaterial to whether or not you are a: dead or b: living under his boot heel.
As reference: see most of human history.
Re: The Japanese Soldier Who Fought WWII for 30 Years
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where you read that but it makes no sense. The Russians could not have taken Japan if they wanted to, they had to go through the US navy to do that. The Soviet Navy at the time was not much to speak of and it also happened to be on the other side of the earth. A big chunk of the Japanese army surrendered to the Russians (as they were stuck in China), and also, if I remember correctly, the Japanese tried…
They were actively engaged in negotiations with Russia before the US dropped the bombs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_...
Yes, as i said they were trying to get the Russians to mediate a peace deal for them. This is why togo said that they were seeking peace through the good offices of Russia.
Re: The Japanese Soldier Who Fought WWII for 30 Years
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where you read that but it makes no sense. The Russians could not have taken Japan if they wanted to, they had to go through the US navy to do that. The Soviet Navy at the time was not much to speak of and it also happened to be on the other side of the earth. A big chunk of the Japanese army surrendered to the Russians (as they were stuck in China), and also, if I remember correctly, the Japanese tried…
They were actively engaged in negotiations with Russia before the US dropped the bombs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_...
[deleted]
Re: The Japanese Soldier Who Fought WWII for 30 Years
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you call him dumb. In his situation there are few ways to verify that Japan had indeed surrendered. If it really was an elaborate scheme by the Allied troops then he would have been called dumb for surrendering so easily.
His belief that the Allies would go through so much trouble to stop a group of people who had killed relatively few people over a 30 year period is what makes him dumb. What troop movements was he observing? What logistics was he disrupting? How effective could he possibly be gathering intelligence if he couldn't even report his findings to his superiors? Even if the war was still going, his contribution to the war e…
I think extreme isolation can lead one to believe anything... even in the face of all those facts. The human mind is an elaborate machine and will comfort you in the strangest ways.