Not 1 US Soldier Died in Hostile Action While Occupying Japan: Why?

I just got through reading a fascinating book, "Nothing Less Than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History" by John David Lewis, a professor of Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Duke University.

In it he examines different wars, ones where the end result was sowing the seeds for the next war (ie the First Punic War, WWI) and ones that resulted in a lasting peace between the belligerents (the Second Punic War, the Persian War, WWII.)

Some stuff that caught my eye: the occupation of Japan resulted in no US losses due to hostile action. Here are some other things I thought would interest the history buffs and people who do hard thinking about the WoT and the occupations of Iraq/Afghanistan:

Quote:

---

In mid-1945, when 500,000 troops were anticipated for the occupation, MacArthur was criticized for saying that in six months only 200,000 troops would be needed. But he was correct - and that number fell to 102,000 by 1948.

---

Quote:

---

[Orders to MacArthur in how the occupation was to be carried out]

By appropriate means you will make clear to all levels of the Japanese population the fact of their defeat. They must be made to realize that their suffering and defeat have been brought upon them by the lawless and irresponsible aggression of Japan, and that only when militarism has been eliminated from Japanese life and institutions will Japan be admitted to the family of nations.

---

Lest you think it is inapplicable, recall that Japan was fueled by a hateful, religious ideology, as much as our current foes are.

Quote:

---

From the Japanese point of view, from the outset there was never any doubt that they had brought this misery on themselves. As John Dower put it, "Because the defeat was so shattering, the surrender so unconditional, the disgrace of the militarists so complete, the misery the 'holy war' had brought home so personal, starting over involved not merely constructing buildings but also rethinking what it meant to speak of a good life and a good society."

---

Quote:

---

The most important mission of the occupation was the elimination of emperor worship and religious-political indoctrination. To this end, two major reforms were required: Shinto as a state cult had to be eradicated, and schools had to be purged of indoctrination for service to the state. These were the keys to remaking the moral framework that dominated Japanese political life

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secretary of State James F. Byrnes

Shintoism, insofar as it is a religion of individual Japanese, is not to be interfered with. Shintoism, however, insofar as it is directed by the Japanese government, and is a measure enforced from above by the government, is to be done away with...there will be no place for Shintoism in the schools. Shintoism as a state religion - National shinto, that is - will go...Our policy this goes beyond Shinto...The dissemination of Japanese militaristic and ultra-nationalistic ideology in any form will be completely suppressed.

---

This is a very fascinating group and if anyone here is interested in doing a reading of it, I am up for that. Regardless, I highly recommend it as it points out the dangers of not ensuring that your enemy knows that he is defeated.

Different General, different time. Current Generals lack the resolve to do what is necessary; current media binds the hands of soldiers, limiting them to "peacekeepers" instead of warriors; current civilian leaders meddle in military affairs with no understanding of what it means to wear a uniform; current citizens want to watch what goes on rather than let soldiers do their jobs and come home....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coloccw

Different General, different time. Current Generals lack the resolve to do what is necessary; current media binds the hands of soldiers, limiting them to "peacekeepers" instead of warriors; current civilian leaders meddle in military affairs with no understanding of what it means to wear a uniform; current citizens want to watch what goes on rather than let soldiers do their jobs and come home....

---

Let's not forget Bush's ridiculous "every human soul yearns for freedom" nonsense that had us approaching Iraq/Afghanistan as if as soon as the Taliban/Hussein were out, everyone would suddenly turn into peace-loving liberal capitalists.

Qualifies as the most bone-headed statements ever made by any political leader, ever, throughout time. I cannot think of any statement or action by even Obama that has been more forcefully divorced from reality, and it has cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives that otherwise would not have been needed.

I'm no determinist, but a simple look at any history book shows that freedom is not some inherent human yearning, but a rare exception throughout history that has to be earned by an enlightened people willing to fight for it.

Good stuff thanks for sharing.[Beer]

Japanese culture was very unique and obedient to ultimate authority (the Emperor was a God, remember). It was this principal, more than any other that allowed their society to survive over 1000 years.

Contrast this with post war Germany.... The Werwolf, Edelweiss Pirates and other insurgent groups murdered pro-Allies government officials and civilians, committed acts of sabotage and by some accounts over 3,000 deaths of occupation troops and subsequent reprisals 1945-46, though this figure has been brought into question. Over 40 US personnel were killed in an explosion in the Occupation Police HQ in Bremen June 1945. This was claimed to be the work of Werwolf, but never proved (or disproved).

See: Perry Biddiscombe's Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944–1946

It isn't comparable purely based upon the cutlures (Japan compared to anyone in the middle east) gcrookstron is right.

I think that one reason we have continued to suffer casualties in Iraq, and Afghanistan is due to excessive meddling of the media, politicians, and too few of combat troops to do the job. Since written history, war has been hell. People die, thats the point of it. Lots of terrible things happen. Lots of those things happen to strike fear into the enemy. Lots of war crimes were committed by all sides in every war up to now. The difference has been, the loser is the criminal, the winners are not brought up on charges on the scale that the loser, aka bad guys are. Now, we have the media up our butt, in about every conflict since, and including vietnam, and everytime our guys try to do their job, we have Jane Fondas crying foul. Then we have politicians with these retarded rules of engagement, to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy. Fight, but dont hurt anyone's feelings. WTF? Then we have insufficient numbers sent there. We relied on locals to help with the hunt for Bin Laden back at Tora Bora. Look how that panned out. Had we used the right number of troops for the job, Bin Laden's head would of been paraded in Washington in 2002. Someone dig up Patton, clone him, and let Blood'n Guts run it like it should be. There wont be any more problems after that. Even the Chinese and Russians would be scared of us,lol.

Street makes some pretty good points. We (American Citizens), primarily receive our information through the media. Bad news sells. Good doesn't. When we set ourselves up as the world police, we aren't going to make anyone happy, at home or abroad, especially with all the cameras focused on the minutia of our operations.

But to point a finger at one facet of this complex engagement and say, "ahah, that's the problem, if we only got rid of [insert anything here], we could win this thing." is overly simplistic.

We are involved in cultures with hugely differing value systems. I doubt seriously there was anything like a majority in either Afghanistan or Iraq that wanted the USA brand of democracy. We wonder why we aren't welcomed by the whole of the population, why the insurgencies are so strong and why there systems are so corrupt. We stand their like some unwelcome big brother messing up their happy little game of marbles trying to enforce new rules in their game that's been played out for thousands of years and we wonder why they attack us instead of being thankful for showing them the error of their ways?

unfortunately comparing japan to islamic extremists isn't practical. sure, theyre both "extreme" by western standards, but thats about it. anyone ever have significant dealings with asian nationals? very interesting society over there. china, korea and japan really aren't that different in their basic social habits and beliefs. my father in law does research over there most of his life, and i can tell you they submit to authority like you wouldn't believe. far more than western society. it has good effects but also bad, they aren't nearly as creative or ambitious. but when they have a clear authority, they bow to it quickly. additionally, japan had EXTREME national pride. what that meant was that once the destruction had occurred and they were defeated, they knew one thing: they wanted to have pride again. this time, they wisely chose to avoid military pride and simply rebuild economically (with our help), and so thats what they did.

in the middle east, the problem isn't generally the iraqi's or the afghani's. its a bunch of crack pots from other countries. they come in, stir up problems, recruit some people, and cause havoc. it would be like if we had gone into japan and made peace and meanwhile the chinese were shipping over nut jobs to blow us up and stir up trouble. iraq and afghanistan really don't have much national pride because theyve never had much to be proud of. theyve been ruled by dictators and generally been at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to world affairs. the general citizen is more concerned with living and getting by any way possible than getting national pride. remember, they just recently (in the grand scheme of things) had their first elections. ever.

i don't think you can sit back and criticize specific political or military philosophies as the reason for failures in the middle east. the problem over there is that if you don't completely eradicate the enemy (which often means killing many, many civilians) you will never get rid of the problem. you can't reason with them, you can't use rebuilding and economic stability as reasons for peace because many of the people fighting aren't even nationals!

I do agree with one aspect of the subject of Japan.
Every Japanese national was an enemy, there were no "hands off" targets
we went in, firebombed them to boost our morale and show strength after PH. then we dropped 2 atomic warheads to show them our our resolve to win.

Don't ever forget, we didn't start it, but we will finish it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byte Stryke

I do agree with one aspect of the subject of Japan.
Every Japanese national was an enemy, there were no "hands off" targets
we went in, firebombed them to boost our morale and show strength after PH. then we dropped 2 atomic warheads to show them our our resolve to win.

Don't ever forget, we didn't start it, but we will finish it.

---

yup, the "war on terror" is as pointless as the "war on drugs"

we need to take the gloves off and be vicious to radical islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elhuero

yup, the "war on terror" is as pointless as the "war on drugs"

we need to take the gloves off and be vicious to radical islam.

---

I think that if the terrorists hide in civilian populations... we carpet bomb that city.
the only way to win a war is to make the cost of resistance so high that it becomes ineffective to fight it.

Even the taliban and Al-quada understand this and that's exactly what they are doing.

Sounds like a cool book, Pancho. I will have to read it.

The Japanese fully surrendered to US forces in September 1945. The Taliban have yet to surrender to us.

Someone refresh my memory. How many independent tribal factions were there in Japan in 1945? How many Japanese civilian non-combatants were intentionally targeted and killed by U.S and allied forces? How many Muslim non-combatants have been intentionally targeted and killed by U.S. and allied forces? Most importantly, what target(s) could the U.S. or coalition forces drop a nuclear bomb or two on, which would then force the supreme (godlike) ruler of Islam to go onto television or radio to admit complete and utter defeat and tell his people to lay down their arms and submit to occupation?

I'm not getting the connection between our current wars and the war in the Pacific. I love history, and most history contains some lessons for current and future conduct, but this connection may be a stretch too far for me.

Oh, I really liked the Punic War review, although I hope you weren't casting the Cathaginians in the role of the Jihadi Muslims. No connections I could make there as well. Sorry if I missed that one too. I do appreciate Hannibal's leadership qualities. My favorite comparison is: Lee is to the Confederacy what Hannibal was to Carthage. Just a wealth of conversation there.

Thanks for the book suggestion. It will go on the To Read list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Someone refresh my memory. How many independent tribal factions were there in Japan in 1945? How many Japanese civilian non-combatants were intentionally targeted and killed by U.S and allied forces? How many Muslim non-combatants have been intentionally targeted and killed by U.S. and allied forces? Most importantly, what target(s) could the U.S. or coalition forces drop a nuclear bomb or two on, which would then force the supreme (godlike) ruler of Islam to go onto television or radio to admit complete and utter defeat and tell his people to lay down their arms and submit to occupation?

Thanks for the book suggestion. It will go on the To Read list.

---

Stone, I believe the bombing of civilian population centers was one the cornerstones of Lemays strategy over Japan. Over 100,000 people were killed alone in the bombing of Tokyo. Lemay was a gloves off dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

Stone, I believe the bombing of civilian population centers was one the cornerstones of Lemays strategy over Japan. Over 100,000 people were killed alone in the bombing of Tokyo. Lemay was a gloves off dude.

---

Is anyone seriously thinking that this type of strategy would be considered or acceptable today? This is not that conflict, and we are not those people. We can not fight all wars the same way but need to tailor our strategy to win the political war as well as the military war.

Tor - You obviously have a love of history. I share that interest, but admit your greater depth of knowledge regarding the Punic Wars. If you ever want a free lunch and would like to discuss the ancient world, I'm buying [Coffee]

Thats the problem, that kind of strategy isnt politically correct today. They think war is some kind of political arguement, a few soldiers die, and we win. War is won when the winner dominates all levels of a society. You must bring the civilians to their knees as well as the military. Conquer is the word. Look at Sherman's March thru the south, the burning of atlanta, the seige at vicksburg, and thats just a couple of nasty engagements of the civil war. The gloves had to come off completely, to win the civil war. The only problem with the afghanis, they fight like this, but we dont. They dont have much to begin with, so aside from wholesale slaughtering to break them, its going to be a nasty ordeal, just like what the british and the soviets found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

Stone, I believe the bombing of civilian population centers was one the cornerstones of Lemays strategy over Japan. Over 100,000 people were killed alone in the bombing of Tokyo. Lemay was a gloves off dude.

---

Much of Japan's military manufacturing was cottage based. Small factories in homes throughout the country. LeMay (and others), made a strong argument that civilian homes harboring military manufacturing were legitimate targets. Some interesting observations of these home based factories have been reported by former P.O.W.s. Most recently I read another observation of this in Unbroken.

As for bombing a people into total submission... I know of no instance in history that the outcome was any different than that experienced by the Nazis undertaking the London Blitz...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcrookston

Much of Japan's military manufacturing was cottage based. Small factories in homes throughout the country. LeMay (and others), made a strong argument that civilian homes harboring military manufacturing were legitimate targets. Some interesting observations of these home based factories have been reported by former P.O.W.s. Most recently I read another observation of this in Unbroken.

As for bombing a people into total submission... I know of no instance in history that the outcome was any different than that experienced by the Nazis undertaking the London Blitz...

---

Uhm, Japan? No land invasion, just the threat of total annihilation from the air.

Fun fact: The Japanese had a "final battle" mentality wherein their thinking was that if they could inflict enough casualties on the invading Americans they would be able to preserve their "national spirit" (ie political-religious system.)

Slogans like "100 million deaths before surrender" became popular in the propaganda press. The strategy went something like this: throw millions of sketchily armed japanese old men, women and children at the beachheads in the hopes of inflicting enough casualties to cause the Americans to withdraw.

Schooling beyond the 6th grade was suspended; children aged 12 and older were expected to take part in the national banzai charge. Hiroshima was the HQ for Army Group South, which swelled to 900,000 strong, mostly those too old, too young and females.

When the US found out about this, they sent out the famous missive..."THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN." They were correct.

The reason the Japanese were not ready to surrender was because they held out a final hope for a "last victory" if they could simply throw enough bodies at the Americans and make it not worth our while to continue. Once we demonstrated the ability and the will to reduce Japan to a radioactive wasteland, if pushed to, all hope for the preservation of the "national spirit" faded and unconditional surrender followed.

FWIW, I believe that is why you saw insurgent activity in Germany. They held out hope that the Americans would begin to fight the Soviets and Germany could emerge as a power again somehow when those two exhausted each other. The will to fight is largely dependent on the hope of final victory - not necessarily that you will live (not everyone is afraid of death,) but that your side will eventually come out on top - that your death will not be in vain. Japan, with such dramatic demonstrations of how outclassed they were and such a stark alternative - surrender or total annihilation - had no such outlets, and so lacked even the relatively minor insurgency of Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tor Larson

Pancho....

Can't say I've read the book mentioned but a lasting peace with belligerents after the 2nd Punic War? Don't think so. If the author thinks there was a peace after the war then he needs to do some research.

There was no lasting peace after the 2nd Punic War. Hannibal anally ripped the Romans a new one from 218BC until he was recalled back to Carthage to bail their asses out in 202- Scipio was at their gates. Hannibal met with Scipio and then they had a smack down at Zama which Hannibal lost- poor, weak cavalry, no allies.

During his 16+ year visit to Whopland Hannibal whacked over 100,000 Romans, ruined southern Italy (it still looks bad) , and did it all with a mercenary army that remained loyal to him until the very end. The cause of the 2nd Punic War? Roman greed, fear, and treaty breaking. Roman forced the war on Hannibal and Carthage.

After Hannibal/Carthage lost the war they Hannibal remolded Carthage, paid off her debt to Rome, and got her back on her feet...way ahead of schedule. Jealousy and fear of a repeat war caused the Romans to go after Hannibal again. He fled east and tried his best to fight Rome any way he could. He knew Rome sucked ass and would be the downfall of everyone in the Med. He ended up taking poison years later- he was buried in Turkey.

Rome always feared Carthage and in 149BC they forced a war with Carthage. It only lasted 3 years and they murdered, raped, and burned Carthage to the ground- without provocation. Just a few hundred thousand died or were sold into slavery- pretty normal for Rome.

Rome still holds the record for destroying more civilizations than any other power in history- Celts, Iberians, Carthaginians, Belgae, British, Picts, Germans, Egyptians, most Italian tribes, Etruscans, Greeks, etc. Imagine going from a genocidal maniac like Caesar to Mussolini. Italy hasn't done well militarily since that empire fell 1600 yrs ago. At least they have great pasta, ice cream, and make a fine shotgun. I've been there many times. Nice place to visit but I wouldn't want them as an ally.

---

I missed this before, but shortly:

After the 2nd Punic War, carthage was done waging aggressive war. It submitted to the authority of Rome, stopped foreign adventures to expand its empire, crucified pro-war leaders and concentrate on what it did best; trade. the 3rd Punic war was simply Roman paranoia; Carthage submitted to them at every step, up to and including disarming themselves and giving all their weapons to the Romans. Didn't stop the Romans from burning Carthage down to the ground, but Carthage itself was not responsible for the 3rd Punic war and didn't deserve what it got.

Point was, the 2nd Punic war settled the matter, for all intents and purposes. Carthage held no major grudges against Rome, didn't attempt to usurp Rome's power and stopped military expansion.

Edit: And for those asking how this compares to today's conflicts, people who think that we're fighting primarily against Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or "terrorists" would have been thinking that we were fighting Aviation, the SS and Rommel's troops. ie, they miss the actual center of financial and ideological expansion for Islam as a Political System (Iran and Our Buddies the Saudis.)

To be fair, no public figure has been saying that, lest we wage a war based on national interests with a clearly defined enemy and win condition instead of "yeah we're basically gonna be over there off and on forever."

We've handed the enemy two gigantic wins in the past 10 years - helping them rebuild Afghanistan while handing the country over to the Taliban v2.0, and turning Iraq, which however brutal was not in the main part of the Islamic political system, over to them as well. Now we're spending billions of dollars helping our enemies build up the countries, which we will leave and which will become very quickly more radical until they resemble the old Taliban and/or Iran.

We continue to hand them victories by supporting largely Islamic revolutions which will result in countries much more eager to support attacks against Israel and the US.

In my view the last 10 years has basically been a string of political blunders turning the massive resources and firepower of the US against itself.