21–30 of 80 posts
I 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, but maybe in a different way than you'd think. There was a divide in Imperial Japanese politics - the Emperor wanted to end the war and was looking to surrender pre-Hiroshima. The heads of the military were split on a course of action - some wanted to fight to the end, but a more common position was trying to fight enough to get more favorable terms than just unconditional surrender. It's common enough to fight…
I don't think that's correct. I've read that the alternative to the bombs was a huge invasion called Operation Downfall. According to Wikipedia: "The U.S. Navy urged the use of blockade and airpower to bring about Japan's capitulation...The U.S. Army, on the other hand, argued that such a strategy could "prolong the war indefinitely" and expend lives needlessly, and...supported mounting a large-scale thrust directly against the Japanese homeland...Ultimately, the Army's viewpoint won."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Consideratio...
Blind 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…
EDIT: "When he was 20 years old, he was called to join the Japanese army."
He was in fact a conscript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, but maybe in a different way than you'd think. There was a divide in Imperial Japanese politics - the Emperor wanted to end the war and was looking to surrender pre-Hiroshima. The heads of the military were split on a course of action - some wanted to fight to the end, but a more common position was trying to fight enough to get more favorable terms than just unconditional surrender. It's common enough to fight…
Japanese manufacturing concepts of kaizen (continuous improvement) and muda (waste), among others, were copied by the rest of the world. The Japanese got the concepts in the first place from American manufacturing processes during WWII, used to rush Sherman tanks and other mass produced military hardware into production.
Sticking with the Axis powers post-WWII, Germany now produces it cars like it produced it's WWII tanks - big, powerful and expensive. The Tiger tank, for example, was a fearsome machine for it's time - one German tank ace in a Tiger laid waste to over two dozen vehicles in a single afternoon. It's 88mm main cannon could easily kill inferior American Shermans at over a mile away.
It's interesting to note how well Germany's economy fared after WWII also. To this day, the German economy is managed by keeping inflation under 2-3% (if I remember correctly). This is as a result of the rampant inflation in the Weimar Republic - conditions that lead to Hitler's rise to power. Germany today dominates the ECB (European Central Bank) so that mindset is at the forefront Europe-wide also, which contrasts with the slightly more laisse-faire economic approach in the US.
Very funny how things work out, indeed. Also it's fascinating for the historical reasons for the way policy, culture and attitudes are today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but maybe in a different way than you'd think. There was a divide in Imperial Japanese politics - the Emperor wanted to end the war and was looking to surrender pre-Hiroshima. The heads of the military were split on a course of action - some wanted to fight to the end, but a more common position was trying to fight enough to get more favorable terms than just unconditional surrender. It's common enough to fight…
> The United States never wanted to land invade Japan - the second option to bombings was a blockade to starve the army out. I don't think that's correct. I've read that the alternative to the bombs was a huge invasion called Operation Downfall. According to Wikipedia: "The U.S. Navy urged the use of blockade and airpower to bring about Japan's capitulation...The U.S. Army, on the other hand, argued that such a strat…
Fascinating, thanks for sharing that. I hadn't seen it before.
It doesn't surprise me that different military branches had different proposed plans - that's common. I wonder how much sway the Army had at that point? I'm pretty sure the Navy generally had more authority in Pacific operations since so much of the fighting was naval-based. Also, a lot of infantry in the Pacific campaign was the U.S. Marine Corps, who worked a lot more closely with the Navy than the Army during that era.
That said, the Air Force was actually a branch of the Army at that point - I'm not sure if it was Army or Navy planes that were involved in the raids and bombing of Japan. Edit: The Enola Gay which bombed Hiroshima was an Army plane. Which doesn't entirely answer the question.
Was MacArthur in favor of Operation Downfall? Pretty sure Admiral Nimitz wasn't...
I keep looking up Wikipedia links trying to figure it out, but not really getting great answers:
> A unified command was deemed necessary for an invasion of Japan. Inter-service squabbling over who it should be—the U.S. Navy wanted Nimitz, while the U.S. Army wanted MacArthur—was so serious that it threatened to derail planning. Ultimately, the Navy partially conceded, and MacArthur was to have total command of all forces, if circumstances made it necessary
Just spent about 10 minutes reading through that link and it's not quite clear who drafted the plans for Operation Downfall and who its proponents were vs. the blockade route.
I hadn't seen read about Operation Downfall before - I still wonder how much it was an option vs. a serious a consideration if the Japanese hadn't surrendered. Fascinating stuff - thanks for sharing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The United States never wanted to land invade Japan - the second option to bombings was a blockade to starve the army out. I don't think that's correct. I've read that the alternative to the bombs was a huge invasion called Operation Downfall. According to Wikipedia: "The U.S. Navy urged the use of blockade and airpower to bring about Japan's capitulation...The U.S. Army, on the other hand, argued that such a strat…
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Consideratio... . Fascinating, thanks for sharing that. I hadn't seen it before. It doesn't surprise me that different military branches had different proposed plans - that's common. I wonder how much sway the Army had at that point? I'm pretty sure the Navy generally had more authority in Pacific operations since so much of the fighting was naval-based. Also, a lot o…
I don't know much more about Operation Downfall that you won't have already come across, but there is one detail you'll be interested in - from the Wikipedia article on Purple Hearts:
"During World War II, nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan...In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart
Funny thing is that at war time being idiot murderer of innocent people is just fine. I think there should be much more footage from war zones. Maybe then people would stop looking at war as sane and sometimes appropriate option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"Had there been no atomic bombs the world may have been a very different place." That is true, but for reasons that have nothing to do with Japan. As far as Japan is concerned, the theories about how they would have fought for every house, etc. are false. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender even before the first atomic bomb fell.
One of the most astonishing facts about the Pacific War was how few Japanese soldiers ever surrendered to the Allies (before the war officially ended). The Japanese sense of honor demanded that they fight till the end and never surrender. I no longer have the exact number, but IIRC, the total number of captives was less than a few thousands. Compare that with the number of German, Italian, Croat, Romanian, etc., prisoners taken.
This was so extreme that on Saipan, Japanese troops murdered ethnic Japanese civilians by forcing them to jump off cliffs to their deaths.
The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender even before the first atomic bomb fell.
One minority faction was. Bear in mind that, even after the first fission bomb fell on Hiroshima, they still didn't surrender. It took another bomb to force them to quit.
Also, even before Hiroshima, the Japanese has already trained millions of civilians to fight against the Allies. Many were expected to use nothing more than bamboo spears. BTW, as I recall, the Japanese government expected ten million Japanese civilians to die fighting the invasion. The US expected to take up to one million casualties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but maybe in a different way than you'd think. There was a divide in Imperial Japanese politics - the Emperor wanted to end the war and was looking to surrender pre-Hiroshima. The heads of the military were split on a course of action - some wanted to fight to the end, but a more common position was trying to fight enough to get more favorable terms than just unconditional surrender. It's common enough to fight…
but then it works out that it becomes the most prosperous place in Asia. Funny world. But didn't it already start the war as the most prosperous place in Asia (not counting tiny Europeans colonies such as Hong Kong)?