Hiroo Onoda: Honor or Fanatism? RIP

[+FLOGGER23 2,793]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda

[MigBuster 2,861]

Video on the BBC about it as well

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-25782214

 

 

I guess he did what he felt he had to..............some people might have just thought sod it where is everyone else and joined a local nudist colony - but its probably fair to say that discipline and serving the emperor was drilled into the group he was in. 

[+ST0RM 145]

One's own beliefs can blind you to the truth.

 

No matter what, his skills as a survivalist were amazing.

[Snailman 517]

One's own beliefs can blind you to the truth.

 

How true. We must resist being fanatized... serving the homeland does not mean we have to be blind, deaf or fool... patriotism means you have to be faithful to your nation at the first place, even against the government if it betrays you.

[+Jug 99]

Always took great comfort that the oath of a US military officer is to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and not any particular bonehead that is occupying the seat currently.  Uniform Code of Military Justice clearly states that members of the military are not to follow orders which they know to be illegal.  I suppose Hiroo would just not fit in...............

[von Baur 54]

In his defense (not that he needs defending), false reports of a war's being over in order to get soldiers to surrender are nothing new, I'm sure. Indoctrinated to distrust one's enemy, to be sure. But he wasn't going to surrender until he was satisfied.

 

I think the Phillipine government showed great restraint when he finally did, considering it's believed he had gone as far as to kill people after the war was over in order to continue his cause. Might have been difficult to prove, but the fact that they did not even try to prosecute him is remarkable. Especially considering the hard feelings over the treatment of Phillipino prisoners by the Japanese during the war. 

 

I say salute to both sides.

 

 

And I agree with Jug. Not only are you not to follow unlawful orders, but you're required to report those orders up the chain of command.

[macelena 1,070]

Regarding what von baur said, it is not the first time such thing happened in those circumstances, specially in the Philippines. After the Spanish-American war of 1898, the Spanish garrison of Baler, besieged by Moro forces, kept fighting for a year until relieved by the USMC. They didn't know the war was over, and the US Marines kept sending them newspapers the defenders believed fake until one of the officers noticed an announcement of a friend of him being stationed to his own unit.

Edited January 25, 2014 by macelena

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Hiroo did not follow orders that where to him unlawful. There we go laying our American template over people of other cultures situation trying to discover their motives. Frivolous.

 

He demands much respect.

 

If Americans today had just 1/8th of his courage......................

[+Gepard 10,233]

Uniform Code of Military Justice clearly states that members of the military are not to follow orders which they know to be illegal.  I suppose Hiroo would just not fit in...............

 

So My Lai never happend, Abu Ghraib never happend. Because its illegal?

No. War always find the evil in the man and bring it to the light.

 

And nobody should blame an other, if he was not already in a similar situation like the guy he blamed.

[Snailman 517]

If you have won the war, everything will be legal, every war criminal is a hero and will have a statue. And every hero on the enemy side will be hanged for war crimes.

 

Vae victis. That's true. But stop sanctifying winners.

[JediMaster 451]

The catch is it is considered insubordination to interpret regulations for a superior officer IIRC. So if an officer gives you an order, and you decide it's illegal, that's insubordination. So you're apparently correct not to follow it, but the decision to not follow it is itself insubordinate.

[von Baur 54]

My personal exposure to this policy was in the wake and directly because of My Lai. That's when/why the US military started stressing the importance and responsibility of each individual to follow the procedures laid out.

 

Yes, you take a risk of being charged with insubordination, dereliction and a few other things I forget right now if you disobey an order. But if it's shown that it was an unlawful order to begin with then those charges are null and void. You are only required by the UCMJ to follow the lawful orders of your superiors. An order clearly violating the rules of warfare (something of an oxymoron, to be sure) is not lawful and therefore you are not being insubordinate in disobeying them. We rquire our soldiers to be courageous enough to stand up for what's right, regardless of who they're standing up to.

 

Personally, I don't consider Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Detention Center, or any of the other 'violations' the bleeding-hearts are upset about as such. The POW conventions do not and never did apply to terrorists, only to uniformed combatants. And people who send a squad of men armed with assault weapons to murder a teenage girl for the heinous crime of wanting to go to school deserve not one more iota of compassion than they show to others. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" could be interpretted to mean that since they have already shown that they care so little about the rights of others why should we now care about theirs?

 

Snaliman, change "every" to "many" on each side of that judegment and I'll agree. leave it at "every" and even you will have to admit you're oversimplifying and wrong.

 

 

**edit**

One more point, and then I'll say no more on the subject. One does not scold a rabid dog, a runaway bull, a bear that's attacking people. One kills it before it can do more harm. Next time I have a mountain lion prowling my property I'll call you. You can come over and try to reason with it. Me? I'm reaching for my firearm.

Edited January 29, 2014 by von Baur

[Murphy'S 15]

So My Lai never happend, Abu Ghraib never happend. Because its illegal?

No. War always find the evil in the man and bring it to the light.

 

And nobody should blame an other, if he was not already in a similar situation like the guy he blamed.

War could Uncover the worst or the better of men.

 

Talking about mi lay, the same event did both.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Murphy'S

[Murphy'S 15]

Hiroo did not follow orders that where to him unlawful. There we go laying our American template over people of other cultures situation trying to discover their motives. Frivolous.

 

He demands much respect.

 

If Americans today had just 1/8th of his courage......................

The attitude of this japenese soldier have TO do with courage....but not only.....do not forget the state of mind in the Militarist japan of the 20's and 30's Edited January 29, 2014 by Murphy'S

[Snailman 517]

Snaliman, change "every" to "many" on each side of that judegment and I'll agree. leave it at "every" and even you will have to admit you're oversimplifying and wrong.

 

yes, of course you are right. There were scoundrels on the loosing side, as there were noble hearts on the winner side too. I didn't mean to generalize I was just pointing to the fact that none of the allied and especially none of the soviet war crimes were ever taken to court and condemned. And none ever since Nurnberg. None of the blue terrorists or red death camp leaders were ever hanged... their grandchildren live happily and still play with people's lives under different flags. And none of those will be hanged... ever

[Toryu 156]

 

 

Honor or Fanatism?

Fanatism, and therefore: Stupidity.

 

Any human being should be intelligent enough to realize, when it's time to leave a party.

That includes a "war" that strangely exceeds the mark of 30 years without an enemy combattant really showing up.

 

 

 

Personally, I don't consider Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Detention Center, or any of the other 'violations' the bleeding-hearts are upset about as such. The POW conventions do not and never did apply to terrorists, only to uniformed combatants. And people who send a squad of men armed with assault weapons to murder a teenage girl for the heinous crime of wanting to go to school deserve not one more iota of compassion than they show to others. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" could be interpretted to mean that since they have already shown that they care so little about the rights of others why should we now care about theirs?

That's true in a perfect world, where a clear line can be drawn between a terrorist a$$hat, and an innocent civillian. Unfortunately, the way that "terrorist reporting" in many cases worked, did nothing to actually capture terrorists, but to even-out personal beef between families.

 

If you catch a terrorist, have him stand next to the nearest wall and give him what he (or she) deserves. But if there's reasonable doubt (and that includes hearsay), you can't use "advanced interrogation" or invite people to stay in prison.

[+Jug 99]

It is just as important to acknowledge that a breach of existing orders occurred as to point out the foul results.  Nobody in war comes out clean and noble.  Bad shit happens amongst the good guys almost as often as among the bad guys.  What is important is that the actions were not in accordance with existing regulations at the time.  The various times our soldiers have stepped beyond the limits of our regulations, they are brought before military courts martial to answer for their actions.  I'm saying that a system that develops blind or fanatic following, to me, is automatically suspect. 

 

On the other hand, my wife and I get into the discussion all the time, supposing we were German citizens just trying to earn a living in Nazi times.  The Nazi's guillotined more of their own citizens during WWII than the French did during the Terror (for those who haven't paid attention in history class this is what the bad years of the French Revolution of 1791-3 is called).  My wife says, and it bears strong consideration, would she be willing to risk the health and welfare of her family during those times to save a few of her fellow citizens?  It is easy to cast aspersions on the German population for their lack of attempts to stop the worst manifestations of National Socialism, but what if it was you and your family you were placing at risk.  As many things, easy to say, not so easy to do.

 

It is my hope and prayer that this Japanese soldier was able to find some peace in his life before his death.  That is probably the best we can hope for and withholding judgment is the least we can do.   My apologies to him, his family, and his nation for any misplaced words I may have said on this forum.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Jug

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

I fully understand what you are saying Jug. The psychology of Nazism lies in the "Stabbed in the back" mythos of post war Germany.

 

The German people were easy prey for racist nationalism (sort of like some parts of the U.S.A. are now or in 1861). The term "Tea Party" seems to beat on my brain now for some reason. My Civil War ancestors are all CSA. My GGG Uncle fought with Wicher's Nighthawks during the  cavalry battle of the Gettysburg Campaign. I do not look at him as a hero of "Southern Virtue," but as a victim of twisted classist, racist  ideology. He could not read. Some rich guy told him and his brother he needed to fight for his home. His Brother died. He lived. So most Southerners, who actually have the ability to think critically, share the same shameful but yet prideful at the same time heritage as the children of WWII Germans. My girlfriend's Grandfather, while stationed in Germany as a 19 year old punk ass tank driver, in 1990 died at Stalingrad in the Heer. My Grandfather was in the USMC in the Pacific and came home to be an abusive alcoholic. Who really won?

 

If it was me born in 21 in Wetzlar, FRG (where my son was born) instead of 71 in TN,  then I would of been in the TC hatch of a Panther in 44, instead of an M1A1 in 03. If I had been born in Ramadi, Iraq in 71, I would of been in a T-72 in 91 or 03 ( if 91 would not have killed me 03 would have or Saddam would of killed me in between). We do not choose our creed. But we are slaves to our species.

 

Thank God ( or Ahura Mazda or whatever), I am an American raised in the later half of the 20th century. Thank God ( or Allah maybe) that a young man named John Lewis, who got his skull cracked on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma , Alabama, who the last thing he saw before the Alabama State Policeman who fractured his skull was the Confederate Flag patch on his uniform was able to recover and represent his people as a Congressman from Georgia. Had the ability to survive and fight for social justice in America. As he walked up the capital steps to vote on the ACA he was spit on and called a N***** by "Tea Party" racists. I will never forget that. Thank God ( or Odin maybe....) I am educated and worldly and have the ability to understand the sins of my fathers and the sins of my peers. But thank more than anything the fact that I lived my life in a nation that gives people opportunity.

 

That is the American dream. Maybe it really is unattainable. But America is the place I was spawned and the IDEA of America is what I love. I am prepared since the day I was born to give my live in the true defense of America. Not some rich racists twisted vision of reality.

Edited February 2, 2014 by CrazyhorseB34

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

On the other hand, my wife and I get into the discussion all the time, supposing we were German citizens just trying to earn a living in Nazi times.  The Nazi's guillotined more of their own citizens during WWII than the French did during the Terror (for those who haven't paid attention in history class this is what the bad years of the French Revolution of 1791-3 is called).  My wife says, and it bears strong consideration, would she be willing to risk the health and welfare of her family during those times to save a few of her fellow citizens?  It is easy to cast aspersions on the German population for their lack of attempts to stop the worst manifestations of National Socialism, but what if it was you and your family you were placing at risk.  As many things, easy to say, not so easy to do.

 

One of my favorite songs actually deals with this oppressive question. "Born in '17 at Leidenstadt" is a collective work by Jean-Jacques Goldmann (French Jew), Carole Fredericks (Black American) and Michael Jones (Welshman). The Jew imagines if he were born German after the WW1 defeat, the Black if she were born white and rich at Johannesburg, the Brit if he were born in Catholic Ulster. Have a try on the enclosed link below. The two last lines are strangely not translated, while they are the most important wish: "May we be spared you and me, if possible for very long, to have to choose one side."

 

Translation of "Né en 17 à Leidenstadt" by Jean-Jacques Goldman ...