10 ms·

The Japanese Soldier Who Fought WWII for 30 Years

138 points by _pius 16y ago

seldo 16y ago
I love this story. I remember reading a very abridged version of it in one of my Super Fact Books when I was 8 or 9 (it omitted the fact that he murdered dozens of people, for instance). Still, he's an amazing (if very, very dumb) character.
- sown 16y ago
  Winners never quit and quitters never win but if you never win and never quit...
  - jrockway 16y ago
    You get a ranch in Brazil.
- robryan 16y ago
  With soldiers this dedicated to the cause though you have to think had there been no atomic bombs the world may have been a very different place.
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    Yes, but maybe in a different way than you'd think. There was a divide in Imperial Japanese politics - the Emperor wanted to end the war and was looking to surrender pre-Hiroshima. The heads of the military were split on a course of action - some wanted to fight to the end, but a more common position was trying to fight enough to get more favorable terms than just unconditional surrender. It's common enough to fight a losing effort to get better surrender terms, and that's probably what would have happened. The United States never wanted to land invade Japan - the second option to bombings was a blockade to starve the army out. Do the Japanese still unconditionally surrender if they go that route? Could the Imperial Japanese Army be enough of a menace that the U.S. leadership takes less than unconditional surrender for terms? Maybe. The most interesting question is what happens if Japan doesn't unconditionally surrender, become occupied, and have the MacArthur transition government put into place. It was hell at the time for Japan, but then Japan became an American protectorate and was able to run their government with one of the lowest military expenditures in the Western world. They were also well-protected from the various brutal Communist regimes in the area. Could Japan have been invaded by Red China or the Soviet Union if the Empire had kept more sovereignty and wasn't an American protectorate? Interesting questions. After the Battle of Midway, the Japanese had already lost to the American forces and it was just a matter of time. The war was going to end, nuclear bombings or not. The question is when and on what terms. Japan got the worst possible terms - unconditional surrender, full disarmament, dissolution and loss of all colonies, and foreign military occupation - but then it works out that it becomes the most prosperous place in Asia. Funny world.
    - ido 16y ago
      but then it works out that it becomes the most prosperous place in Asia. Funny world. But didn't it already start the war as the most prosperous place in Asia (not counting tiny Europeans colonies such as Hong Kong)?
      - gaius 16y ago
        Contrast with Britain that started WW2 as the most powerful country in the world with the largest empire, and lost it all.
    - michaelkeenan 16y ago
      > The United States never wanted to land invade Japan - the second option to bombings was a blockade to starve the army out. I don't think that's correct. I've read that the alternative to the bombs was a huge invasion called Operation Downfall. According to Wikipedia: "The U.S. Navy urged the use of blockade and airpower to bring about Japan's capitulation...The U.S. Army, on the other hand, argued that such a strategy could "prolong the war indefinitely" and expend lives needlessly, and...supported mounting a large-scale thrust directly against the Japanese homeland...Ultimately, the Army's viewpoint won." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Considerations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Consideratio...
      - lionhearted 16y ago
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Consideratio.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Consideratio.... Fascinating, thanks for sharing that. I hadn't seen it before. It doesn't surprise me that different military branches had different proposed plans - that's common. I wonder how much sway the Army had at that point? I'm pretty sure the Navy generally had more authority in Pacific operations since so much of the fighting was naval-based. Also, a lot of infantry in the Pacific campaign was the U.S. Marine Corps, who worked a lot more closely with the Navy than the Army during that era. That said, the Air Force was actually a branch of the Army at that point - I'm not sure if it was Army or Navy planes that were involved in the raids and bombing of Japan. Edit: The Enola Gay which bombed Hiroshima was an Army plane. Which doesn't entirely answer the question. Was MacArthur in favor of Operation Downfall? Pretty sure Admiral Nimitz wasn't... I keep looking up Wikipedia links trying to figure it out, but not really getting great answers: > A unified command was deemed necessary for an invasion of Japan. Inter-service squabbling over who it should be—the U.S. Navy wanted Nimitz, while the U.S. Army wanted MacArthur—was so serious that it threatened to derail planning. Ultimately, the Navy partially conceded, and MacArthur was to have total command of all forces, if circumstances made it necessary Just spent about 10 minutes reading through that link and it's not quite clear who drafted the plans for Operation Downfall and who its proponents were vs. the blockade route. I hadn't seen read about Operation Downfall before - I still wonder how much it was an option vs. a serious a consideration if the Japanese hadn't surrendered. Fascinating stuff - thanks for sharing.
  - hristov 16y ago
    "Had there been no atomic bombs the world may have been a very different place." That is true, but for reasons that have nothing to do with Japan. As far as Japan is concerned, the theories about how they would have fought for every house, etc. are false. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender even before the first atomic bomb fell.
    - weego 16y ago
      Indeed so, but I read they were considering surrendering to the Russians, which is something the US really didn't want.
      - hristov 16y ago
        I don't know where you read that but it makes no sense. The Russians could not have taken Japan if they wanted to, they had to go through the US navy to do that. The Soviet Navy at the time was not much to speak of and it also happened to be on the other side of the earth. A big chunk of the Japanese army surrendered to the Russians (as they were stuck in China), and also, if I remember correctly, the Japanese tried to use the Russians as mediators in their negotiations with the Americans, but there was no chance of the Soviet Union taking over Japan. First, they could not get there even if they wanted, and secondly Stalin was not about to openly defy the US at that point.
        NickPollard 16y ago
        Although Russia definitely did want Japan's conquered territory in China and the rest of mainland Asia - the main lasting effect of the Atomic Bombs on the geo-political outcomes of the war was giving the Americans the ability to force the surrender before Russia began its invasion of Manchuria. This is why the Japanese attempts to negotiate a measured surrender through the Soviets were ultimately futile - it was actually in Stalin's interests to not pass on the Japanese proposals to the US, as an early peace deal would kill his opportunity to land grab in Asia.
        wanderingknight 16y ago
        They were actively engaged in negotiations with Russia before the US dropped the bombs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_...
  - hooande 16y ago
    The atomic bombs were devastating and impressive, but they didn't do much more actual damage than the B-29 fire bomb raids on Tokyo in terms of loss of life and property. When you can drop bombs at all, it doesn't really matter what kind of bombs they are. The atomic bombs were an excellent PR move of sorts, as a tool to convince the japanese to give up more than as a weapon of war.
    - forinti 16y ago
      I think that dropping incendiary bombs on cities made mostly of wood and paper is even worse than dropping an atom bomb. And it wasn't just Tokyo; dozens of japanese cities were burned to the ground.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      You're talking about two bombs on relatively unimportant targets, specifically because they wanted relatively untouched cities to erase as a demonstration. That won't kill as many people as years-long bombing campaigns on more populous cities. They were staged demonstrations, not attempts to kill massive amounts of people. If Japan didn't surrender after the first two atom bombs, the next half dozen would have undoubtedly caused much, much more damage.
  - wanderingknight 16y ago
    You have to think what would have happened if Japan went on with their negotiations with Soviet Russia. You know, the ones the US tried so hard to stop with those bombs.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    Without the shock of the atomic bombings there would almost certainly have been more Japanese civilians dead before the end of the war, even discounting a landed invasion. By late 1945 the allied bombing campaign was sufficiently geared up to destroy entire cities on a recurring basis. It was as effective as the atomic bombings, it was merely a lot less efficient (hundreds of planes and crews instead of just one). Had Japan held off surrendering, and had that conventional bombing campaign continued much longer the destruction would have been far greater. Had the allies then lacked the courage to mount a landed invasion and been satisfied with a negotiated peace instead of an unconditional surrender, Japan would have become a devastated country with few allies and many enemies, it would not have been rebuilt with foreign assistance and would almost certainly be a 3rd world nation or perhaps even a failed state today.
- FooBarWidget 16y ago
  I don't know why you call him dumb. In his situation there are few ways to verify that Japan had indeed surrendered. If it really was an elaborate scheme by the Allied troops then he would have been called dumb for surrendering so easily.
  - kaptainlange 16y ago
    His belief that the Allies would go through so much trouble to stop a group of people who had killed relatively few people over a 30 year period is what makes him dumb. What troop movements was he observing? What logistics was he disrupting? How effective could he possibly be gathering intelligence if he couldn't even report his findings to his superiors? Even if the war was still going, his contribution to the war effort was minimal compared to the effort the Allies appeared to be putting forth to "capture" him.
    - roofone 16y ago
      Hiroo Onoda may be dumb, but I believe you can't tell that based on this story. To suggest otherwise is myopic. Apply Occam's razor: news of Japan's surrender is a (probably not uncommon) Allied trick vs. the US created a magic secret weapon that would force Japan -- a country so dedicated to winning they crash planes into boats -- to surrender shortly after Hiroo left it. In Hiroo's Japanse solider's shoes, which seems more likely? So, true, you'd think he'd eventually figure it out (i.e. give up), but perhaps his grip on reality became a skewed after living alone in a jungle for decades (i.e. he's made of tougher mettle than I am). Still doesn't indicate dumb to me though. (Edit: Added epiphanic id ests to last paragraph.)
      - InclinedPlane 16y ago
        In 1946, perhaps, in 1950? 1955? 1960? 1970? no. At that point, 5, 10, 15, 30 years after the fact the idea that Japan had not lost the war, the war was still going, and yet they had not reconquered the Phillippines doesn't pass the smell test.
        16y ago
yewweitan 16y ago
The power of indoctrination is strong.
Eliezer 16y ago
Now there was a man who needed to learn how to lose.
- Kliment 16y ago
  Sly reference to your fanfic, I see. For those who missed it when it was on HN, I'm referring to http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_M...
- gametheory 16y ago
  Great fanfic btw.
JacobAldridge 16y ago
Turns out Step 3 is 'Live on coconute for thirty years and then get back pay'. Step 4 remains Profit.
chrischen 16y ago
Blind conviction to your country is nationalism. I don't see how he can be seen as a hero for that. Sure what he did was amazing, but I wouldn't encourage such patriotic behavior.
- coryl 16y ago
  It wasn't just blind conviction though, he was a professional soldier. It was war time, and his commanding officer sent him in to conduct guerrilla warfare in the jungles. He was expected to be there for a long time and operationally independent. "You are absolutely forbidden to die by your own hand. It may take three years, it may take five, but whatever happens, we’ll come back for you. Until then, so long as you have one soldier, you are to continue to lead him. You may have to live on coconuts. If that’s the case, live on coconuts! Under no circumstances are you [to] give up your life voluntarily."
  - varjag 16y ago
    There's no mention he was professional though. EDIT: "When he was 20 years old, he was called to join the Japanese army." He was in fact a conscript.
    - Tichy 16y ago
      And he had never even seen Rambo I and II...
  - chrischen 16y ago
    It was obvious his conviction that his country could not lose was based on faulty reasoning. Japan was inevitably going to lose, nuclear bomb or not. So I think his persistence was fueled by his blind allegiance to his country, most likely because he believed that his country was superior to all other countries because he was born in it. Professional or not, I think the primary motivation was his country, and not his training. Doing something that dedicated requires a firm belief in the purpose (unless you were retarded to some degree). Of course he may have been lied to, or misled into thinking his country was greater than it was. In any case this would be why blind allegiance is bad.
seertaak 16y ago
> Among his list of things to do on his journey was to find “Onoda, a panda, and the Abominable Snowman”. Genius!
- jimbokun 16y ago
  How'd he do on the other two?
coryl 16y ago
Wow, first time reading about this. Absolutely insane.
willhankinson 16y ago
I highly recommend his autobiography (linked in the article)-- No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. I picked it up on a whim once, having never heard of the story, and was blown away by it.
scotty79 16y ago
> Now in the end, we might look at Onoda as a fool and worse, a murder of innocent people. In the end, he was both of those things, there is no denying it. Funny thing is that at war time being idiot murderer of innocent people is just fine. I think there should be much more footage from war zones. Maybe then people would stop looking at war as sane and sometimes appropriate option.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Worse option: letting the other guy go to war, and you don't. Its called surrender and can be worse.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    This is not always true. Almost all wars are started for "defensive" reasons and oftentimes those reasons are just lies told to drum up support for the war. The Nazi regime convinced ordinary people that they had to fight against an internal Jewish threat. That was a lie. If ordinary Germans had let "the other guy" go to war, nothing would have happened because there was no internal threat. Likewise, if Americans had ignored the terrible threat that Iraq posed to the US in 2003, then nothing would have happened: Iraq wasn't a threat to the US. Claims that it was trying to do destroy the US or had the capability to do so were lies. Ignoring the lies is not surrender. The first rule of honorable war fighting is to figure out which justifications are true and which are lies. A people that can't or won't do that can never be honorable since sooner or later, they'll end up exterminating lots of innocent people in a war based on lies.
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      Whether the other guy starts a war based on a lie or not is immaterial to whether or not you are a: dead or b: living under his boot heel. As reference: see most of human history.
      - MichaelSalib 16y ago
foxtrot 16y ago
there was a film with this in, or at least inspired by it. Remember the image in my head of a japanese soldier in dishevelled clothes looking out at the ocean from a bunker.
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Don't we all live a life of self-delusion? Most of us haven't seen through the fog yet; we're still fighting for nothing.
TallGuyShort 16y ago
Ignoring his actions for a moment, I really admire his quotes about children needing to be raised to be more independent (which can be seen at the bottom of the article). I'm a big believer that most of the world's problems today, are caused because someone, somewhere, didn't take responsibility for themselves, and I think he hit the root cause of that on the head. Interesting to hear the opinion of someone who basically skipped 30 years of society's gradual change.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Being independent doesn't imply living a sustainable lifestyle.
dennisgorelik 16y ago
That's the danger of brainwashing...

138 points by _pius 16y ago

seldo 16y ago

I love this story. I remember reading a very abridged version of it in one of my Super Fact Books when I was 8 or 9 (it omitted the fact that he murdered dozens of people, for instance). Still, he's an amazing (if very, very dumb) character.

sown 16y ago
Winners never quit and quitters never win but if you never win and never quit...
- jrockway 16y ago
  You get a ranch in Brazil.
robryan 16y ago
With soldiers this dedicated to the cause though you have to think had there been no atomic bombs the world may have been a very different place.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  Yes, but maybe in a different way than you'd think. There was a divide in Imperial Japanese politics - the Emperor wanted to end the war and was looking to surrender pre-Hiroshima. The heads of the military were split on a course of action - some wanted to fight to the end, but a more common position was trying to fight enough to get more favorable terms than just unconditional surrender. It's common enough to fight a losing effort to get better surrender terms, and that's probably what would have happened. The United States never wanted to land invade Japan - the second option to bombings was a blockade to starve the army out. Do the Japanese still unconditionally surrender if they go that route? Could the Imperial Japanese Army be enough of a menace that the U.S. leadership takes less than unconditional surrender for terms? Maybe. The most interesting question is what happens if Japan doesn't unconditionally surrender, become occupied, and have the MacArthur transition government put into place. It was hell at the time for Japan, but then Japan became an American protectorate and was able to run their government with one of the lowest military expenditures in the Western world. They were also well-protected from the various brutal Communist regimes in the area. Could Japan have been invaded by Red China or the Soviet Union if the Empire had kept more sovereignty and wasn't an American protectorate? Interesting questions. After the Battle of Midway, the Japanese had already lost to the American forces and it was just a matter of time. The war was going to end, nuclear bombings or not. The question is when and on what terms. Japan got the worst possible terms - unconditional surrender, full disarmament, dissolution and loss of all colonies, and foreign military occupation - but then it works out that it becomes the most prosperous place in Asia. Funny world.
  - ido 16y ago
    but then it works out that it becomes the most prosperous place in Asia. Funny world. But didn't it already start the war as the most prosperous place in Asia (not counting tiny Europeans colonies such as Hong Kong)?
    - gaius 16y ago
      Contrast with Britain that started WW2 as the most powerful country in the world with the largest empire, and lost it all.
  - michaelkeenan 16y ago
    > The United States never wanted to land invade Japan - the second option to bombings was a blockade to starve the army out. I don't think that's correct. I've read that the alternative to the bombs was a huge invasion called Operation Downfall. According to Wikipedia: "The U.S. Navy urged the use of blockade and airpower to bring about Japan's capitulation...The U.S. Army, on the other hand, argued that such a strategy could "prolong the war indefinitely" and expend lives needlessly, and...supported mounting a large-scale thrust directly against the Japanese homeland...Ultimately, the Army's viewpoint won." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Considerations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Consideratio...
    - lionhearted 16y ago
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Consideratio.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Consideratio.... Fascinating, thanks for sharing that. I hadn't seen it before. It doesn't surprise me that different military branches had different proposed plans - that's common. I wonder how much sway the Army had at that point? I'm pretty sure the Navy generally had more authority in Pacific operations since so much of the fighting was naval-based. Also, a lot of infantry in the Pacific campaign was the U.S. Marine Corps, who worked a lot more closely with the Navy than the Army during that era. That said, the Air Force was actually a branch of the Army at that point - I'm not sure if it was Army or Navy planes that were involved in the raids and bombing of Japan. Edit: The Enola Gay which bombed Hiroshima was an Army plane. Which doesn't entirely answer the question. Was MacArthur in favor of Operation Downfall? Pretty sure Admiral Nimitz wasn't... I keep looking up Wikipedia links trying to figure it out, but not really getting great answers: > A unified command was deemed necessary for an invasion of Japan. Inter-service squabbling over who it should be—the U.S. Navy wanted Nimitz, while the U.S. Army wanted MacArthur—was so serious that it threatened to derail planning. Ultimately, the Navy partially conceded, and MacArthur was to have total command of all forces, if circumstances made it necessary Just spent about 10 minutes reading through that link and it's not quite clear who drafted the plans for Operation Downfall and who its proponents were vs. the blockade route. I hadn't seen read about Operation Downfall before - I still wonder how much it was an option vs. a serious a consideration if the Japanese hadn't surrendered. Fascinating stuff - thanks for sharing.
- hristov 16y ago
  "Had there been no atomic bombs the world may have been a very different place." That is true, but for reasons that have nothing to do with Japan. As far as Japan is concerned, the theories about how they would have fought for every house, etc. are false. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender even before the first atomic bomb fell.
  - weego 16y ago
    Indeed so, but I read they were considering surrendering to the Russians, which is something the US really didn't want.
    - hristov 16y ago
      I don't know where you read that but it makes no sense. The Russians could not have taken Japan if they wanted to, they had to go through the US navy to do that. The Soviet Navy at the time was not much to speak of and it also happened to be on the other side of the earth. A big chunk of the Japanese army surrendered to the Russians (as they were stuck in China), and also, if I remember correctly, the Japanese tried to use the Russians as mediators in their negotiations with the Americans, but there was no chance of the Soviet Union taking over Japan. First, they could not get there even if they wanted, and secondly Stalin was not about to openly defy the US at that point.
      - NickPollard 16y ago
        Although Russia definitely did want Japan's conquered territory in China and the rest of mainland Asia - the main lasting effect of the Atomic Bombs on the geo-political outcomes of the war was giving the Americans the ability to force the surrender before Russia began its invasion of Manchuria. This is why the Japanese attempts to negotiate a measured surrender through the Soviets were ultimately futile - it was actually in Stalin's interests to not pass on the Japanese proposals to the US, as an early peace deal would kill his opportunity to land grab in Asia.
      - wanderingknight 16y ago
        They were actively engaged in negotiations with Russia before the US dropped the bombs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_...
- hooande 16y ago
  The atomic bombs were devastating and impressive, but they didn't do much more actual damage than the B-29 fire bomb raids on Tokyo in terms of loss of life and property. When you can drop bombs at all, it doesn't really matter what kind of bombs they are. The atomic bombs were an excellent PR move of sorts, as a tool to convince the japanese to give up more than as a weapon of war.
  - forinti 16y ago
    I think that dropping incendiary bombs on cities made mostly of wood and paper is even worse than dropping an atom bomb. And it wasn't just Tokyo; dozens of japanese cities were burned to the ground.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    You're talking about two bombs on relatively unimportant targets, specifically because they wanted relatively untouched cities to erase as a demonstration. That won't kill as many people as years-long bombing campaigns on more populous cities. They were staged demonstrations, not attempts to kill massive amounts of people. If Japan didn't surrender after the first two atom bombs, the next half dozen would have undoubtedly caused much, much more damage.
- wanderingknight 16y ago
  You have to think what would have happened if Japan went on with their negotiations with Soviet Russia. You know, the ones the US tried so hard to stop with those bombs.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Without the shock of the atomic bombings there would almost certainly have been more Japanese civilians dead before the end of the war, even discounting a landed invasion. By late 1945 the allied bombing campaign was sufficiently geared up to destroy entire cities on a recurring basis. It was as effective as the atomic bombings, it was merely a lot less efficient (hundreds of planes and crews instead of just one). Had Japan held off surrendering, and had that conventional bombing campaign continued much longer the destruction would have been far greater. Had the allies then lacked the courage to mount a landed invasion and been satisfied with a negotiated peace instead of an unconditional surrender, Japan would have become a devastated country with few allies and many enemies, it would not have been rebuilt with foreign assistance and would almost certainly be a 3rd world nation or perhaps even a failed state today.
FooBarWidget 16y ago
I don't know why you call him dumb. In his situation there are few ways to verify that Japan had indeed surrendered. If it really was an elaborate scheme by the Allied troops then he would have been called dumb for surrendering so easily.
- kaptainlange 16y ago
  His belief that the Allies would go through so much trouble to stop a group of people who had killed relatively few people over a 30 year period is what makes him dumb. What troop movements was he observing? What logistics was he disrupting? How effective could he possibly be gathering intelligence if he couldn't even report his findings to his superiors? Even if the war was still going, his contribution to the war effort was minimal compared to the effort the Allies appeared to be putting forth to "capture" him.
  - roofone 16y ago
    Hiroo Onoda may be dumb, but I believe you can't tell that based on this story. To suggest otherwise is myopic. Apply Occam's razor: news of Japan's surrender is a (probably not uncommon) Allied trick vs. the US created a magic secret weapon that would force Japan -- a country so dedicated to winning they crash planes into boats -- to surrender shortly after Hiroo left it. In Hiroo's Japanse solider's shoes, which seems more likely? So, true, you'd think he'd eventually figure it out (i.e. give up), but perhaps his grip on reality became a skewed after living alone in a jungle for decades (i.e. he's made of tougher mettle than I am). Still doesn't indicate dumb to me though. (Edit: Added epiphanic id ests to last paragraph.)
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      In 1946, perhaps, in 1950? 1955? 1960? 1970? no. At that point, 5, 10, 15, 30 years after the fact the idea that Japan had not lost the war, the war was still going, and yet they had not reconquered the Phillippines doesn't pass the smell test.
      - 16y ago

yewweitan 16y ago

The power of indoctrination is strong.

Eliezer 16y ago

Now there was a man who needed to learn how to lose.

Kliment 16y ago
Sly reference to your fanfic, I see. For those who missed it when it was on HN, I'm referring to http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_M...
gametheory 16y ago
Great fanfic btw.

JacobAldridge 16y ago

Turns out Step 3 is 'Live on coconute for thirty years and then get back pay'. Step 4 remains Profit.

chrischen 16y ago

Blind conviction to your country is nationalism. I don't see how he can be seen as a hero for that. Sure what he did was amazing, but I wouldn't encourage such patriotic behavior.

coryl 16y ago
It wasn't just blind conviction though, he was a professional soldier. It was war time, and his commanding officer sent him in to conduct guerrilla warfare in the jungles. He was expected to be there for a long time and operationally independent. "You are absolutely forbidden to die by your own hand. It may take three years, it may take five, but whatever happens, we’ll come back for you. Until then, so long as you have one soldier, you are to continue to lead him. You may have to live on coconuts. If that’s the case, live on coconuts! Under no circumstances are you [to] give up your life voluntarily."
- varjag 16y ago
  There's no mention he was professional though. EDIT: "When he was 20 years old, he was called to join the Japanese army." He was in fact a conscript.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    And he had never even seen Rambo I and II...
- chrischen 16y ago
  It was obvious his conviction that his country could not lose was based on faulty reasoning. Japan was inevitably going to lose, nuclear bomb or not. So I think his persistence was fueled by his blind allegiance to his country, most likely because he believed that his country was superior to all other countries because he was born in it. Professional or not, I think the primary motivation was his country, and not his training. Doing something that dedicated requires a firm belief in the purpose (unless you were retarded to some degree). Of course he may have been lied to, or misled into thinking his country was greater than it was. In any case this would be why blind allegiance is bad.

seertaak 16y ago

> Among his list of things to do on his journey was to find “Onoda, a panda, and the Abominable Snowman”. Genius!

jimbokun 16y ago
How'd he do on the other two?

coryl 16y ago

Wow, first time reading about this. Absolutely insane.

willhankinson 16y ago

I highly recommend his autobiography (linked in the article)-- No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. I picked it up on a whim once, having never heard of the story, and was blown away by it.

scotty79 16y ago

> Now in the end, we might look at Onoda as a fool and worse, a murder of innocent people. In the end, he was both of those things, there is no denying it. Funny thing is that at war time being idiot murderer of innocent people is just fine. I think there should be much more footage from war zones. Maybe then people would stop looking at war as sane and sometimes appropriate option.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Worse option: letting the other guy go to war, and you don't. Its called surrender and can be worse.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  This is not always true. Almost all wars are started for "defensive" reasons and oftentimes those reasons are just lies told to drum up support for the war. The Nazi regime convinced ordinary people that they had to fight against an internal Jewish threat. That was a lie. If ordinary Germans had let "the other guy" go to war, nothing would have happened because there was no internal threat. Likewise, if Americans had ignored the terrible threat that Iraq posed to the US in 2003, then nothing would have happened: Iraq wasn't a threat to the US. Claims that it was trying to do destroy the US or had the capability to do so were lies. Ignoring the lies is not surrender. The first rule of honorable war fighting is to figure out which justifications are true and which are lies. A people that can't or won't do that can never be honorable since sooner or later, they'll end up exterminating lots of innocent people in a war based on lies.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    Whether the other guy starts a war based on a lie or not is immaterial to whether or not you are a: dead or b: living under his boot heel. As reference: see most of human history.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago

foxtrot 16y ago

there was a film with this in, or at least inspired by it. Remember the image in my head of a japanese soldier in dishevelled clothes looking out at the ocean from a bunker.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

Don't we all live a life of self-delusion? Most of us haven't seen through the fog yet; we're still fighting for nothing.

TallGuyShort 16y ago

Ignoring his actions for a moment, I really admire his quotes about children needing to be raised to be more independent (which can be seen at the bottom of the article). I'm a big believer that most of the world's problems today, are caused because someone, somewhere, didn't take responsibility for themselves, and I think he hit the root cause of that on the head. Interesting to hear the opinion of someone who basically skipped 30 years of society's gradual change.

Tichy 16y ago
Being independent doesn't imply living a sustainable lifestyle.

dennisgorelik 16y ago

That's the danger of brainwashing...