Has anybody here been to Yakusuni Shrine in Tokyo?

[Nikademus]

Just finished "Zero!" by Masatake Okumiya and Jiro Horikoshi. Interesting read.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Just finished "Zero!" by Masatake Okumiya and Jiro Horikoshi. Interesting read.

I got that book from the library some 20 years ago and read it. I've looked for a copy since then and couldn't find it anywhere. The Guard deployed me, but first sent me to Germany for about a month. There it was at the PX. I've carried that book literally half way around the world with me getting it home. [:D]

[Nikademus]

Found mine in Oahu (of all places when you think about it......)

[Dereck]

Still does not belay the fact that it was the Japanese who decided to replace diplomacy with military action.

They were the ones who planned war while engaged in so-called diplomacy with a nation which had no intention of going to war with them. They struck first and for them to say they were not the aggressors and didn't deserve what they got is one of the most hypocritical ideas around.

Maybe it just gauls me because I had these family members fight in WWII - all but my step-grandfather in the Pacific. A previous post on this thread mentioned Japanese who "all had relatives that died in the war". Well, I don't think you'll find a family in the states that wasn't touched by the war either.:

Grandfather, US Army (same unit as Rodger Young)
Grandfather(step), US Army and US Merchant Marine
2 Great-Uncles, US Navy
Great-Uncle, US Army
Great-Uncle, US Army, KIA, Munda, 1943
Third Cousin-Twice Removed, US Navy, KIA USS California, 7 Dec 1941
Father, US Army Air Corps, Pacific

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Just finished "Zero!" by Masatake Okumiya and Jiro Horikoshi. Interesting read.

Wasn't Jiro Horikoshi the designer of the Zero?


BTW, I would love to get my hands on that book... [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Gen.Hoepner]

ORIGINAL: dereck

Still does not belay the fact that it was the Japanese who decided to replace diplomacy with military action.

They were the ones who planned war while engaged in so-called diplomacy with a nation which had no intention of going to war with them. They struck first and for them to say they were not the aggressors and didn't deserve what they got is one of the most hypocritical ideas around.

Maybe it just gauls me because I had these family members fight in WWII - all but my step-grandfather in the Pacific. A previous post on this thread mentioned Japanese who "all had relatives that died in the war". Well, I don't think you'll find a family in the states that wasn't touched by the war either.:

Grandfather, US Army (same unit as Rodger Young)
Grandfather(step), US Army and US Merchant Marine
2 Great-Uncles, US Navy
Great-Uncle, US Army
Great-Uncle, US Army, KIA, Munda, 1943
Third Cousin-Twice Removed, US Navy, KIA USS California, 7 Dec 1941
Father, US Army Air Corps, Pacific

It was a world war. I think everybody here, from Russia to France, from US to Japan has some relatives involved in war. This, obviously, changes our point of view and makes harder to be objective when looking at our history.
My 2 granfathers both fought under the Flag of Italian Army first and then under R.S.I. and they both got captured and sent to POW camps. It's obvious that from their stories it's hard for me not to think about the allies as "enemies"...
I think for the americans it's the same with Japan....exactly like Livius thought about the carthaginians just as enemies...
Everything is relative.
And about who started the war....also here it depends upon the point of view you decide to take. A war need to have one "starter". Then the winner will claim that his reasons were the right one : if he started the war he has brought freedom and liberty ( think about Napoleonic propaganda in italy,Spain,Portugal and Holland or about the Indipendece War of the US), if he has been attacked, doesn't matter if he pushed the other one to do so, he will claim that he has restored the law and peace ( again think about the 2° Punic War)....Centuries pass by but men always remain the same

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11


Wasn't Jiro Horikoshi the designer of the Zero?

Yes.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: dereck

Still does not belay the fact that it was the Japanese who decided to replace diplomacy with military action.

They were the ones who planned war while engaged in so-called diplomacy with a nation which had no intention of going to war with them. They struck first and for them to say they were not the aggressors and didn't deserve what they got is one of the most hypocritical ideas around.

Maybe it just gauls me because I had these family members fight in WWII - all but my step-grandfather in the Pacific. A previous post on this thread mentioned Japanese who "all had relatives that died in the war". Well, I don't think you'll find a family in the states that wasn't touched by the war either.:

Grandfather, US Army (same unit as Rodger Young)
Grandfather(step), US Army and US Merchant Marine
2 Great-Uncles, US Navy
Great-Uncle, US Army
Great-Uncle, US Army, KIA, Munda, 1943
Third Cousin-Twice Removed, US Navy, KIA USS California, 7 Dec 1941
Father, US Army Air Corps, Pacific

Of course the Japanese started the war (and by doing this lose it the very first day they started it because waging war against USA was "suicide" - just as Germany committed "suicide" when attacking Russian and declaring war on USA)!

But their decision was gradual sinking into "black hole"...

This is why I really wholeheartedly recommend the book for everyone to read (if they didn't do it already because it would show the ways Japanese politics and military was made in those crucial years and this was something not widely known)!


BTW, I think that the best way to approach history is to always try to get books from" both sides" (i.e. both sources).

For example I have two "general" books about WWII Eastern Front:

The Russo-German War 1941-1945
by Albert Seaton
(German sources - German point of view)

When Titans Clashed - How the Red Army Stopped Hitler
by David M. Glanz and Johnatan House
(Russian sources - Russian point of view)

Only after you read both of them you can objectively look at same history because you now have info from both sides...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Nikademus]

Glanz is an impressive author.....have read his co-written book on Kursk. Alan Clarke's Barbarossa is another good read.

The Japanese decision to go to war is often described as "suicide" but i don't think the Japanese saw it that way. (Those in charge) I think they saw it more as, at the risk of oversimplifying, "better to live by the sword and die by the sword rather than risk being subjecated (as they saw it in view of the crippling oil embargo and demand for complete withdrawl from all occupied territory in Asia)

Remember too...they did have two compromise plans that they were negotiating back in the fall of 41.

[diesel7013]

In many ways, the world was a much more complex place in the '30's than it is today...

1. There were several countries that believed ( some justifiably and others not so ) that they were major super powers on the world's stage and had a right to influence the world's direction...
Germany,
USSR,
Britain,
France,
Italy,
Japan,
USA
All to some degree or other attempted to exert their influence on the others for their own good.

2. No country - other than MAYBE the USA and Britain really understood what the other was attempting to accomplish and respected the will and goals of the other countries. There was significant distrust and lack of cultural and political understanding all the way around.
Most Americans thought the Japanese were ignorant, myopic, and whatever... then came the Zero and night battles, and brilliant manuvers in Malaya and the DEI...
The French and British were constantly at each others throats during the invasion of France - AND THEY WERE ALLIES - they didn't trust or undertand each other at all!!

Don't even get me started on USSR and USA - could the cold war have been avoided??

Hell - if everyone had a better understanding of each other - could Europe have been spared WWII??

Today - with the cultural and political intermingling that we have - there is a much better attempt at understanding each other than ever before.

There are a few examples - ( Middle East ) but then those countries really don't have the power to influence the larger contries unless the larger countries let them... see US led invasion of Afganistan and Iraq...



What all this really means, is that with the complex world situation in the late 30's, war may have been inevitable...

Japan was on a colision to war with a larger country as soon as they moved into French Indochina and refused to back out of China. Yes, I do believe that US diplomacy 'pushed' Japan into a rash move due to the imbargos of raw materials and forcing Japan into searching out for other sources of raw materials. Hell - the last message sent to Japan prior to the Dec 1 meeting with the emperor stated that Japan had to pull out of China - without leaving in that she could stay in Manchuria - this was purposly left out on our part, even though it had been agreed on that Japan could stay in Manchuria... This - to many in Japan - was the final straw...
BUT, from the US stand point - we could not let Japan continue to move into other countries and take them over - we had to do something and soon to stop the expansion before Japan did have a source of raw materials - Most Americans in office were concerned that then they would have a fight on their hands if Japan could secrue oil and other resources...

SO - who was wrong??

Well, Japan drew first blood - in Manchuria in '31, and China in '37 and moving into French Indochina - and finally in '41 against the US and Britian and Dutch and Aussies... So - you can't get any more wrong than that...

Yes, maybe the US did intend to go to war with Japan in '42 or '43 if she didn't back down and Japan jumped the gun - but Japan was expanding and violently and had to be stopped...

So - Japan was wrong...


Final thoughts...

1. Starvign POW's vs. bypassing islands - POW's have agreed to stop hostile actions - Japs on the islands didn't - many had leaflets dropped asking for surrender - but they all refused - it was the Japanese on the island who starved themselves...
2. Dropping of A-Bomb - maybe could have dropped it elsewhere - but the war had to end soon from a US standpoint - USSR was getting ready to move and US didn't want to invade and if they did wanted to do it sooner rather then later - find out if this will work and get the biggest bang for your buck by hitting a population center


Oh well - rants over...

PS - ZERO is a wonderful look at carrier tactics and operations from Japans POV...

[TulliusDetritus]

More "politics", you naughty and irresponsible contributors? [;)]

[ChezDaJez]

The Japanese decision to go to war is often described as "suicide" but i don't think the Japanese saw it that way. (Those in charge) I think they saw it more as, at the risk of oversimplifying, "better to live by the sword and die by the sword rather than risk being subjecated (as they saw it in view of the crippling oil embargo and demand for complete withdrawl from all occupied territory in Asia)

I agree with that, Nik. My personal opinion is that Japan felt that, right or wrong, she had no other choice but war. I also think that the majority of the Japanese leadership knew they wouldn't win but they saw no other way out short of what they would have considered as dishonorable, that is losing face. Given the nationalistic feelings in Japan at the time and Roosevelt's maneuverings, war was inevitable. Both the Japanese and American governments held the paint brushes that painted the Japanese into a corner.

In reply to Dereck:

They were the ones who planned war while engaged in so-called diplomacy with a nation which had no intention of going to war with them. They struck first and for them to say they were not the aggressors and didn't deserve what they got is one of the most hypocritical ideas around.

The Japanese and German people living today are not the same people who brought about WWII. I think those who spout this non-aggressor crap are a very small, but vocal, minority, much like the skinheads in this country are. And Roosevelt had every intention of going to war with them. He just wanted to goad them into firing the first shot. He probably understood their national psyche far better than we give him credit for and knew that they couldn't lose face by backing down.

There are still people today who claim that the holocaust never happened, many living right here in the good ole' US of A. Should we attribute their words to their home country as a whole?

Chez

[BossGnome]

I agree, as I said before, I have been living in tokyo for 8 months now, and I talk a lot to the other kids I go to highschool with. Sometimes I talk to them about ww2. mostly, they don't know too much about it, but almost all japanese nowadays are very friendly towards america. The part where it puts me a little off, is that a lot of japanese nowadays are not very friendly towards china and korea (this is reciprocal by the way). What I am a little concerned at seeing, is when Koizumi decides to rebuild a full japanese army (which he plans to do by 2007), AND amending the japanese consitution, that currently states that japan shall never, never engage in war again as a sovereign nation. He is doing this, he says, in view of the expanding chinese military buget, and to make japan a "normal" country again. Hmmm...

What I AM a little concerned about is the lack of good relations japan has with its neighbours.On the one hand, China constantly tries to impede japan when the latter tries to make any political progress on the world stage, by reminding everyone of the things japan did in world war 2, and on the other, you have a much pacified, much changed, political dwarf (japan), who is trying to regain some brownie points, while at the same time, denying some of the things they did in WW2. Once again, I repeat this, it IS indeed a very small minority in japan who are revisionits and nationalists, but, UNLIKE THE SKINHEADS in Germany, this small minority is Japan's political elite. Just look at dear old Koizumi going every year to Yasukuni to pray and honor the spirit of none other than General Tojo, or Kobayashi Yoshinori, the manga writer, who publishes mangas who indirectly encourage violence against chinese people, and a return to the "honor the emperor, expel the foreign barbarian" type mentality.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

[The Japanese and German people living today are not the same people who brought about WWII. I think those who spout this non-aggressor crap are a very small, but vocal, minority, much like the skinheads in this country are. And Roosevelt had every intention of going to war with them. He just wanted to goad them into firing the first shot. He probably understood their national psyche far better than we give him credit for and knew that they couldn't lose face by backing down.

Chez I would like to see your source for that statement. Roosevelt was trying to goad one nation into a fight but it was GERMANY, not Japan at all.

[Nikademus]

Caputo (Pacific War) supports this contention. It is worded however more like "The Roosevelt Administration" knew that war was inevitable and was gearing up as rapidly as possible for the coming conflict...the diplomacy corps was ordered to continue negoiations and keep them going for as long as possible while this gearing up occured.

As mentioned the Japanese were authorized to offer two compromise plans to the US in which they would agree to some of the concessions demanded but Roosevelt veto'd any compromise after the oil embargo was put into effect. The Japanese must withdrawl from all occupied territory to end it. He had to have known that the Japanese would never agree to it.

[mlees]

I have to agree with Dereck, here.

I believe that Roosevelt's main worry was the war in Europe, and keeping Britain (and later the USSR) alive to fight Germany.

The US Navy was mainly concentrated in the Atlantic. (This was not smart if he was trying to goad Japan...)

He was trying to curb Japan's agression with the economic sanctions. I believe he and the Secretary of State Cordell Hull were both surprised by the attacks occuring before a DOW. (Or at least before the Japanese Ambassador was recalled.) The Japanese Ambassador continued to indicate that talks were possible between Japan and the US right up to the end (of peace).

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Caputo (Pacific War) supports this contention. It is worded however more like "The Roosevelt Administration" knew that war was inevitable and was gearing up as rapidly as possible for the coming conflict...the diplomacy corps was ordered to continue negoiations and keep them going for as long as possible while this gearing up occured.

As mentioned the Japanese were authorized to offer two compromise plans to the US in which they would agree to some of the concessions demanded but Roosevelt veto'd any compromise after the oil embargo was put into effect. The Japanese must withdrawl from all occupied territory to end it. He had to have known that the Japanese would never agree to it.

The "Japanese must withdrawal from all occupied territory to end it" (including China) was "de facto" last straw for Japanese government and after that they decided to go to war with USA/UK.

The sad thing is that under "China" USA didn't consider "Manchuria" (i.e. long time Japanese occupied part of China they called "Manchukuo"). Japanese didn't understand this ambiguous USA demand and war was inevitable in Japanese eyes because adhering to those demands else was just loosing honor (and for them loosing honor was equal to defeat).

This was Hull's mistake...


Leo "Apollo11"

[ChezDaJez]

Chez I would like to see your source for that statement. Roosevelt was trying to goad one nation into a fight but it was GERMANY, not Japan at all.

Actually, it was both. If you read the text of the messages and talks (found HERE) conducted between Nomura and Hull throughout 1941, a clear picture emerges as to the political maneuvering towards war Roosevelt was engaged in. Indeed, he wanted war with Germany but he also realized that American people would not support that, especially after his "promise" not to send our boys into a foreign war. So he sought a "backdoor" route.

In the Spring of 1941, Admiral Kichisaburo Nomura stressed in every talk with Secretary of State Cordell Hull that American blockages of essential raw materials to Japan might set Japan off for the south, and if the U.S. stopped oil, any remaining influence of the Japanese advocates of peace would vanish. Nomura also said on numerous occasions that either the above action or armed action by the US against the forces of Germany would lead to war. Japan was already deeply disturbed by the Lend-lease act. He said that Japan was fully prepared to honor her commitment to Germany via the Tripartite Treaty. Japan was willing to negotiate over China and French Indochina so long as she was gauranteed access to raw materials economically. Hull relayed these condtions to Roosevelt personally on several occasions as mentioned in Hull's memoirs.

So what happens? Roosevelt orders an economic embargo of Japan, including oil, on 26 July 1941. Then on 11 September 1941, Roosevelt announced the "shoot on sight" orders against German submarines. He clearly recognized that Japan would fight over oil as he himself stated during an informal discussion with the Volunteer Participation Committee on 24 July 1941 (2 days before he cut it off) where he explained why he hadn't cut off oil to Japan earlier.

All right. And now here is a nation called Japan. Whether they had at that time aggressive purposes to enlarge their empire southward, they didn't have any oil of their own up in the north. Now, if we cut the oil off, they probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had war.

Roosevelt didn't want to avoid war. He just wanted to avoid the appearance of wanting war. Seems pretty clear to me. Don't get me wrong, Japan was wrong for resorting to war but we did everything in our power to bring it about.

Chez

[bostonrpgmania]

I dont know whether it is appropriate to write on this topic here but...(if not, let me know and I will delete my post)


Japan were mobilizing womens of neighboring countries (at that time, colonies of Japan) as sex toys for soldiers (even girls who were at their early teens) but yet they argue that they were volunteers (whoooooo...did you see the pictures of ladies now at their late 90s who cried about their experience as a sex toy of japanese soldiers?)

They masacred a lot of people in China ruthlessly (I remember seeing documentary film where they toss a chinese baby in the air and then use the sword attached to their gun to kill him in the air--simply disgusting) yet they argue that they were not japanese soldiers but soldiers from their colonies....

Japan needs to look back history and should apologize to their neighboring countries for what they have done instead of writing big lies in that shrine.
To be a responsible member of the international commuinity, they need to really apologize as Germany did after WW II

[ilovestrategy]

I spent a year in Okinawa and Japan. I don't know what they teach in school over there but one thing I can tell you is that the whole 365 days I was over there not one Japanese showed me anything but politness and respect. I was lost at a bus station one night and this one elderly gentleman who was obviously alive during WW2 spent his time making sure I got to the right bus and we didn't know a word of each others languages. He even waved to me as I got on the bus. I think that in itself says something...[:-]