8 ms·

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

by 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

by seldo 16y ago

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