MovieChat Forums > Nobi (1959) Discussion > Half A Million Dead Americans Not Enough...

Half A Million Dead Americans Not Enough For You?

posted 17 years ago by InNeedofaLife
11 replies | jump to latest

>>>Every American who thinks he or she understands World War Two should see this movie. Few Hollywood films about the war have defied the stereotype of Japanese soldiers as emotionless brutes obeying orders without thinking. We like to think that every Japanese man was ready and able to fight to the death, right up to the day we bombed Nagasaki. "Fires on the Plain" shows a different reality: troops pathetically undersupplied, demoralized and starved to the point of cannibalism. They euphemistically refer to human flesh as "monkey meat." The movie and novel on which it was based also put to death the myth that Japanese soldiers all preferred death to surrender: They had good reason to believe that their enemies were in no mood to take prisoners. To me it raises a question most Americans would rather avoid: If the Japanese military was so beaten down at this point in the war, why was it necessary to nuke Hiroshima? <<<

Fortunately, our Allied (not just AMerican)wartime planners had the benefit of military intelligence, countless men with lifetimes of military experiance, prisoners, Japanese press and radio...and not a two hour surrealstic movie to draw from.

What the above person who posted this (as well as others who are participating in this Japanese soldier lovefest) is unaware of, is that these soldiers were stationed on an island that we "island hopped," and this wasn't the condition of the typical Japanese soldier.

As our naval power became dominant in the Pacific, it wasn't neccessary for us to retake every island that the Japanese occupied, but we'd "hop" over that island instead.
"Island hopping" is what we called it.

Since the Japanese Navy was unable to transport these bypassed troops to other islands due to losses to their troop transports, they withered on the vine.
The two most powerful battleships ever built were Japanese, and they were even unable to operate in open water.

Unlike the war in Europe where 25,000 German troops who were bypassed could come back to "bite you on the butt" from behind, a bypassed island was now a "prison."

This movie took place in Feb. 1945.

We invaded Okinawa a month later, and lost about 12,500 men.
We invaded Iwo Jima in February 1945, and lost about 7,000 dead.
Iwo Jima barely shows up on a map...at the time..it usually didn't.

Japanese were pulling all resources back to the mainland for a last ditch.

Our military planners didn't need a fictional movie showing cannibalistic Japanese..they were fighting the war in real time, and 216 captured Japanese soldiers surrendering on Iwo Jima out of 20,000 plus ain't a good ratio.

The Allies, not just the Americans, put our possible deaths in invading the Jpanese islands at tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.

Japanese losses were estimated to be in the millions.

Know why?

Even without the atomic bombs, we were going to pull every B-29, B-17, B-24, medium bomber on down from Euroe where the war was over, station them on the southern isalnd of Japan, as well as Iwo and Okinawa and others, and have a long campaign of destroying every Japanese city with conventional bombs.

Since we had already destroyed some of their other cities, including Tokyo, with conventional bombs, this wasn't difficult, as Japan used wooden structures rather than masonry.

Above person may not be aware of the fact we killed more people in Tokyo with conventional bombs than we did in Hiroshima with atomic...it just takaes more missions.
Since we'd have fighter aircraft from Europe and from carriers, in a short period of time Japan could not even launch fighters against us.

Japanese infrastructure would quickly be wiped out, as it was far more fragile than what we were encountering in Europe.

Once we had the Allied troop in position, INCLUDING the Soviet Union, we were going to invade.

Even the Japanese have acknowledged that they'd have lost more lives and theri country be ruined if we had ended it so soon.

Atomic bombs allowed the Japanese to save face when surrendering before they were even invaded.

Of course, the question I wish to ask this person, is how many American boys would he like to have seen lost invading Japan, as opposed to the dead enemy.

On top of that, the blame is also to be placed on the Japanese officials who knew the condition of their forces better than we did...and still prolonged the war.

Take your war revisionist theories somewhere else.

Maybe you can go try and convince the Jewish community the Holocaust never took place, and how badly it sucked that the Nazi SS were going to bed without supper while they ranthe concentration camps.

Yeah, it sucked these poor Japanese guys were starving, but you may want to do a wee bit of research and discover that some Japanese troops participated in ritualistic cannibalism when they weren't starving, and often times on American pilots and crew members.

The "myth" that AMericans didn't take prisoners?
It was drilled into their heads by their officers.
Since the Japanese soldier was very uneducated on American culture, they easily believed it.

Okinawa was/is a Japanese island with a large civilian population at the time of WW2.
The military had so convinced them that Americans would kill them, that parents threw their children off the cliffs into the ocean, and then followed.
Americans shot color footage of it even, and were horrified.
Now then, apply that to many million of civilians living in Japan.

Wow...I've lost track of time...I haven't even touched on the Rape of Nanking.
Here's a link instead:

http://www.tribo.org/nanking/

For those who feel all "touchie feelie" about the poor Japanese soldier, you may go to youtube and type in Nanking, and watch a few movies.
I didn't watch anyof them...I've seen the pictures enough already of Japanese soldiers catching Chinese babies on bayonets, and pictures of Chinese women and girls with pieces of bamboo inserted vaginally until they died.

Why do we have these pictures?
Well, the "Glorious Sons of Nippon" were taking pictures and sending them back to their families.

Lots of information in books, websites, etc., that show Japanese atrocities that often times exceeds what Germany was pulling off.

Spend some time feeling sorry for Japan's enemies first, and learning a bit more about what Japan was about from the early 30's to 1945.

You'll wish you'd been the one to have dropped the bomb.

[–] Akzidenz_Grotesk 17 years ago

The bomb drops weren't revenge, but if anything could be good cause for such, it would be Japanese behaviour in World War Two.

Some people need reminding that World War Two Japan was also a brutal military dictatorship like its Nazi partner. The dehumanizing misery many allied soldiers faced in the Japanese version of hell-on-earth was putrid.

The documented crimes committed by the Japanese forces are numerous and sickening. Stuff that most people haven't heard of, like the bayoneting of wounded allied soldiers in hospital beds. That's something a Japanese movie would likely never show in our lifetimes.

[–] Nephilim-6 16 years ago

You haven't seen Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence have you?

Did you ever notice that people who believe in creationism look really un-evolved? - Bill Hicks

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"That`s something a Japanese movie would likely never show in our lifetimes".

Will there be an American movie in our lifetimes that depicts American war crimes during WW2, which, while hardly comparable in scale to Japanese ones, were still more than plentiful?

But the Japanese systematic denial of culpability in WW2 is indeed a strange and somewhat disturbing phenomena - the only film of theirs I can think of that attempts to bring the atrocities etc to public attention, is the 1987 documentary called The Emperor`s Naked Army Marches on, where a mentally not-altogether-there veteran tries to get the wartime military types to confess as to what they and the army were up to during WW2, using all means available - including hand-to-hand combat.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Boaz357 16 years ago

Not to take away from "Fires on the Plain"....its an outstanding film.

Thanks for your post.Today people have no idea what the truth of the second world war is.They watch films and thier heart bleeds.Thier common sense is thrown to the side.
It sickens me to read these fools on imdb who have no sense of history.

The Japan of the 1930's-1940's needed to be crushed, destroyed and humiliated.The Nazi's needed to be exterminated themselves.

How many innocent and decent men in those armys died needlessly?
Thats a hard and sad question.For a hard and sad human condition called war.A condition we keep repeating.

[–] communicator-1 16 years ago

InNeedofaLife:

Very well said. In Japan, where it was considered an honor to die for the Emporer, the death toll of a full blown invasion of Japanese Soil would have been astronomical. While soldiers are often sent on so-called suicide missions, there is always the possibility of returning alive. It is very difficult for Westerners to understand the Kamakazi's because there is no chance of survival. The mindset of the Japanese soldier was very different than anything we had encountered before. I totally agree that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was totally necessary to end the War. What most people fail to remember, is that leaflets, ordering people to evacuate those cities, were dropped days before by American Bombers. The citizens were warned that a tremendous bomb was to be dropped on them. Many fled....Many didn't.

Back to the film, which I felt was excellent. The message of this anti-war film is that War is hell, and it goes on to show why in explicit detail. I see no political message in the film. The soldiers could be from any nation. It is a plea to defer from any future wars, and as such, packs a powerful message.

[–] gettinmygrooveon 16 years ago

I think if you bring up Japanese war crimes then you should mention that America allowed Japan's worst war criminal, Shiro Ishii (leader of unit 731), to get off scot-free.

You might also mention America's war crimes during the occupation of Japan. Murder, rape, looting...oh wait, shh shh, let's keep that secret and just focus on how bad the Japanese were and how they "had it coming".

Might be good for you to read up on history *prior* to WWII and find out what prompted Japan to take the actions it did. It was America who started bullying Japan first in the mid-19th century by forcing Japan to enter into unequal treaties...relations went downhill from there.

I'm not saying Japan is great, just trying to point out that everything isn't so black and white like you guys would like to believe.

[–] zep89 16 years ago

What the above person who posted this (as well as others who are participating in this Japanese soldier lovefest) is unaware of, is that these soldiers were stationed on an island that we "island hopped," and this wasn't the condition of the typical Japanese soldier.

Fires on the Plain takes place on Leyte, which was definitely not "island hopped" by the US. It was invaded by MacArthur's forces in October 1944. By the time the campaign was over, 3,504 American and 49,000 Japanese troops were dead.

http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/leyte/leyte.htm

[–] gschwertley 14 years ago

From a historical standpoint, there's not a great deal that I disagree with in the OP's rather long text.

I'd like to point out that "Fire on the Plain" was loosely based on the experiences of Ooka Shohei (last name first in Japanese custom). He wrote the book "Taken Captive" which of course goes into more detail about his own experiences and I recommend it.

Anyway, the author Ooka, whom we can reasonably substitute for the lead character in "Fire on the Plain" was a reservist solder in his 30's who was called up late in the war to help stem the tide in the Philippines. He discusses the contemporary distinctions made between the various classes of reserve soldiers and the regular army/career soldiers. These distinctions should be considered with regard to the conduct and attitude of the Japanese soldiery, much as we might view the attitudes of the draftees in the US Army of the Vietnam war.

The guiding light of the Japanese military government was the totalitarian approach to policy making and the way it was carried out. Many of the reservist soldiers were not approving of the militarist mentality but as in most armies were powerless to do much to resist this institution. Japanese society was far more accepting of and obedient to authority than that of the US.

The value that I personally derive from this film is the focus on the trauma of militarism and wartime violence against the individual soldier. I have served as an enlisted soldier in wartime. To some small degree, I have experienced the misery, loneliness, and anguish that the lead character in this film portrays.

To the poster above who mentioned incidental American "crimes" that took place during the occupation, well, that's just historically insignificant. These random acts were the isolated, criminal acts typical of the soldiery of any occupying force, and far, far less significant than the institutionalized rape that took place in Germany during the initial phases of Russian occupation.

More significant is the historical revisionism that has taken place in modern Japan. There is a form of historical denial that has taken place. All Japanese citizens would do well to view this film once again, plus a few others.

[–] porsche1974 13 years ago

The nuking of two Japanese cities was truly regrettable. It was a complex
situation with some stubborn Japanese leaders, i.e. the Big Six, and the Russians declaring war on Japan. America wanted to end the war quickly
before the Russians got involved and did not have the option of a truce
with extended negotiations involving some stubborn leaders. Perhaps if
some of these elements were missing there could have been a demonstration
of an atom bomb and then a surrender. So two cities got nuked, instead
of a horrific slaughter and a divided Japan that would have resembled a
divided Germany.

People should watch this to motivate them to avoid waging war.
Especially when their leaders are not being truthful.

[–] DD-931 12 years ago

Do you actually think that America would not have dropped the atomic bombs in Japan if the Russians hadn't entered the war? It's not just that the Russians entered the war in the Pacific AFTER THE HIROSHIMA BOMB WAS DROPPED in August of 1945. It's that you somehow think America (and Great Britain and Australia and New Zealand, etc.) would have been willing to accept all those casualties in an invasion of Japan rather than end the war with the threat of nuclear devastation. Or, to starve millions and millions of Japanese to death in a blockade, or kill them through a long term bombing campaign that actually would have ended up being more devastating than the nuclear bombs were.

Try exploring this issue more thoroughly before you start coming to conclusions about it.

[–] Squeeth2 12 years ago

In The Shock of the Old David Edgerton writes that it cost $2bn to build the A-bombs (and $3bn for the B-29 fleet) and that the USSBS calculated that the Hiroshima bomb did as much damage as 229 B-29 bombers with 1,200 tons of incendiaries, 400 tons of HE and 500 tons of anti-personnel bombs and that Nagasaki would have needed 125 B-29s. The TNT equivalence meant one bomber with a nuclear had 50-250 times the power of conventional bombs, because most of the explosion of a nuclear went elsewhere than the target (pp. 15-16). He concludes that it was Soviet entry into the war and the mild relaxation of peace terms after the bombs which forced surrender on the Japanese regime. The bombs may have made this easier but weren't crucial.

I wouldn't go over the top about his claims but they are well-sourced and worth a thought. Pity he didn't refer to any Japanese sources as to the effect on the Japanese leadership though.

After the Napoleonc Wars, in On War, Carl Clausewitz wrote described how the sport of kings became the cause of peoples. After the Franco-Prussian War the Prussian commander-in-chief, Helmuth von Moltke the Elder wrote that the era of Volkskrieg had returned, when the Government of National Defence replaced Napoleon III and decreed a return to the principles of 1792, a levee en masse, Committee of Public Safety and war a outrance. Not long after the war, Moltke became sceptical that the wars of German Unification (in which Prussia-Germany's enemies gave in after a small number of decisive battles) would be repeated because of the precedent set by the French, who had been able to prolong the war and cause considerable strain on the German economy. Moltke predicted that wars between the great powers would become long and indecisive, yet hugely destructive and that to obtain public consent for them, they would have to be justified by apocalyptic claims about the state's enemy and utopian promises about post-war life (for the survivors) which would be difficult to repudiate when the bill arrived.

The contemporary "defence of democracy and human rights", by the systematic stripping of the legal protections of the person qua the state and the mass slaughter of the state's enemies, "to bring democracy to them", are classic examples of Napoleonic and post-Franco-Prussian War thinking about mass industrial warfare. Perhaps it would be wise to bear this in mind when debating the effect and the morality of the ending of the Japanese war?

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.