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

[Pancho Villa]

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:

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.

[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.

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."

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

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.

[275RLTW]

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....

[Pancho Villa]

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.

[flan7211]

Good stuff thanks for sharing.

[gcrookston]

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

[spyder]

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

[streetglideok]

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.

[Ridge]

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

[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?

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.