http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/hiroo-onoda-japanese-soldier-dies
Crazy, here's a bit from the article:
Lock if old.
Crazy, here's a bit from the article:
Lock if old.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Japanese soldier who took three decades to surrender, dies
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
- Status
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Wow. R.I.P.
Here's hoping he died in peace.
Here's hoping he died in peace.
vas_a_morir
Banned
I used to think this dude was neat. And then I found out about all the murders of innocent locals he committed over the years because he's an insane idiot. Just saying, it kinda changed the way I looked at things.
Having only a passing knowledge about this, I never knew that. Damn.
Yep, same. killed dozens of innocents over the decades. Really a shame.
Lamel
Banned
Yeah. Interesting though how loyal he was.
Not really, nationalism is helluva drug. WW2 was crazy times and people did horrible stuff out of loyalty for the country.
vas_a_morir
Banned
ЯAW;97426247 said:
It was interesting... but when you think about it for more than 1 minute, you kinda realize that this guy was basically the same kind of guy that shoots up rallies for congresspeople. It's just not rational for someone to continue to act like this. It's a switch flipped on in his head that he can't turn off on his own.
Was he greeted as a hero in Japan? If so, I feel that's disgraceful.
"Japan" is not a monolithic entity any more than the US, though.
I'm sure people from conservative militaristic points of view thought his devotion was heroic.
I'm sure more modern and liberal thinkers thought of him as a demonstration of the madness of war and a relic of thinking.
Pop On Arrival
Banned
so did this wackjob kill 30 innocent people after the war ended?
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
So no one is allowed to die in peace? I never said he deserves a military march or some shit. He lived a very bizarre life, his circumstances are very tragic and his actions are quite maddening.
Harry Truman has already sacked him in the afterlife.
Spike Spiegel
Member
Maybe he just liked to kill people, and used "the war never ended" as an excuse.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Now that is an awesome plot twist.
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda
I'm not saying it's great he shot 30 people, but if you read that you see that he wasn't alone when the call was made to refuse to believe that the war had ended.
And I think that after some time when even your own military hasn't contacted you, you might think the war is still going, especially when you read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda
I'm not saying it's great he shot 30 people, but if you read that you see that he wasn't alone when the call was made to refuse to believe that the war had ended.
And I think that after some time when even your own military hasn't contacted you, you might think the war is still going, especially when you read this:
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
The view in Japan was that "coming home" after the war was not really a good thing. When you went to war, you were already dead to the homeland. Kind of explains this.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
It's kinda of a muddy issue since he assumed they were enemy combatants. It's not the first time holdouts have continued to fight long after a war was over. He was never relieved of duty so he may be considered a soldier still in combat and immune from charges. He did receive a full pardon from the Philippine president so obviously the matter was considered closed.
It's not murder in wartimes though and that's what this guy believed. He believed he killed enemy combatants. As horrible as it is, he is no cold blooded killer, just a nutcase that was too fixed on his orders and ideas, that the idea of Japan losing the war never crossed his mind.
Lamel
Banned
Not exactly the same thing in this situation, and I think you know that. He's being considered more fanatical because he hid in a jungle for 30 years and killed in the name of the emperor and a war that had already ended. That is far more "crazy" than someone fighting during the actual war. Context is key.
Killing anyone at any time is wrong, though (most of the time).
I'm pointing out more the label of "insane" being used casually, because it's apparently dependent upon timing.
Fattony12000
Member
#WAR
Even more interesting. How can we call him insane for his loyalty when it's something praised in our society?
Winterfang
Banned
Can't we just bury him in prison?
maquiladora
Member
Sounds like a crazy anime.
The atomic bombs dropped by the US killed over 200,000 Japanese people.
Kill 30 people who aren't trying to kill you, you're a mass murderer.
not that different from all the other soldiers in the world
but yes, it sounds like he lost it a while ago.
AstroZombie
Banned
That man is a true bad ass
But after he surrendered he went to live a relatively normal life. I don't think he was insane, just stupidly devoted to the emperor and his country. It just shows on far blind faith can take someone imo.
Chuckie
Member
But are you immune from charges if you kill innocent civilians?
SillyEskimo
Member
Gotta love that Gaf Defense Force. You're right, truly there is no difference...
CornBurrito
Member
The guy thought the war was still ongoing.
Which isn't so strange when you live almost in total isolation. Your mind messes with you, especially when you strongly believe that your country will come back for you. While he killed 30 people, you can't fully hold him responsible, the world isn't so black and white.
That really is completely up in the air. There's documents from the period showing that the Japanese were going to surrender and that was before they dropped the second bomb. Everything that happened during World War 2 was horrible, there was no "good" and "bad" side in WW2. Every single country who participated in the war commited horrible crimes, it's just the Japanese and Germans are some of the only ones who have to live with the ramifications since they lost the war.
I got this quote from BT news (it's where my email is so I see it every day)
The thing with the Japanese in WW2 is most of them were ordered to stay in their positions until they either died by enemy fire or their commander came to tell them they could be relieved from duty, anything less than that would be abandoning their post and in many countries that was a killable offense.
The trouble is with people like Onoda is they were stationed in such remote locations at the time that half of them over time were forgotten about. When the war was over there was still many Japanese soldiers with no idea the war had ended since their superior officers never contacted them. People may have tried to tell them the war was over in different ways but those people who still believed they had to fight to the death for their country and the world was still in conflict, it's hard to hate them for what they did.
The vast majority of soldiers from both sides of the war, Allies or Axis were just doing what they were told to do, it was either death by enemy fire or death by execution for refusing to fight. I have a large amount of respect for any poor soul who had to fight in those wars and especially people who got left behind and lost 30-40 years of their lives to a conflict that ended decades before.
We shouldn't look back at this man and say, wow he killed 30 innocents he's a monster. What we should look back and say is this man, much like any other man fought to protect is country with his life. He lost contact with his family who most likely thought he was dead and was isolated in the jungle with no support from anywhere. He's a hero for never giving up fighting for what he believed in (the protection of his homeland). It's stories like this and other stories from WW2 that make you realise the true horror what really happened to so many millions off people worldwide and it amazes me that after everything humanity still uses violence as a way of sorting problems and that still upsets me. Did all those men die for nothing?
RIP.
Chuckie
Member
Yes there was. Germany and Japan were the aggressors invading numerous of countries. That makes them the bad guys.
(the governments that is, not necessarily the soldiers)
Yes, their governments were bad, but the decisions made by the governments on both sides of the war cost the lives of millions of innocent young men and civilllians to achieve this so called victory, which in the grand scheme of things didn't fix all that much in the world. There were no true winners of WW1 or WW2. Hitler died and the Nazi regime fell but in the grand scheme of things with the sheer amount of people that died, that's a very hollow victory.
I hold nothing against the soldiers (apart from the SS since the vast majority of them were maniacs) since they were just following orders and fought and the majority of the time died because of the words of one or two people. If there was any justice in the world every single world leader and higher ranking members of the military from that time would have been imprisoned for sheer amount of crimes against humanity, you can say it was necessary but I don't agree. From their comfortable homes the world leaders with their voices spilt the blood of millions and if that isn't a crime I have no idea what is.
Anyway, I don't want to argue about this because this topic is about a veteran who sadly lost his life.
vas_a_morir
Banned
It's always hard to argue what would have been. Unfortunately for Japan, leadership had proven itself to be an irrational actor. A rational actor would have surrendered after Midway. Really, a rational actor probably wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor in the first place.
I don't feel the desire to fight to the death is necessarily a bad thing. It's seen as admirable by most. After all, Churchill's most inspiring and famous speech is basically a proclamation that each Anglo around the world will die before they bow to a foreign tyrant. And, it's easy to say when there is a more than likely chance that you'll never be faced with that decision. (Nazi Germany was imploding by that point, where they desperately needed more stolen wealth to continue to sustain their unsustainable economy)
In Japan's case, in an unwinnable war as an isolated importer of resources vs. an exporter of resources, the 'die before surrender' scenario was an inevitability. With leadership that cannot be easily deposed under the constitution at the time, the fate of the shot-callers became intertwined with the fate of Japan itself. Under these circumstances, the end of the regime and the end of Japan made no difference, as it was believed to have meant death all the same for those in charge.
SneakyStephan
Banned
#WAR
Welp, that's a sickening quote if it's real
#WAR
Why did you screenshot your own twitter?
dorkimoe
Gold Member
So is anyone who fought for their country then
- Status