Japanese in the Pacific and Far Eastern Theatres: Difference

Dean

Dean

Active member
Hello all. I recently saw an episode of "The American Experience" that dealt with the Pacific was. I already knew about the Japanese propensity to fight to the death against the Americans, but as I was watching, a thought came to me, and it was, in fact, referred to in the episode. I would like to know why the Japanese Kwantung Army in China simply surrendered en masse to the attacking Russian army while on Okinawa and the other Pacific islands, the idea was never even considered. It seems quite strange that two units of the same army had such different reactions when faced with basically the same situation: an overwhelming unbeatable attack. Any ideas?

Dean.
 
lol, maybe they had more sense or just had enough..or maybe they were more of older people and highly educated graduates that had lifes and families and didnt want to just die..
 
CanadianCombat said:
probably because they knew there was no chance of winning, and a mass suicide was not the answer.
Click to expand...

I would have thought the same thing... but they were willing to send the Yamato on a suicide missing against the American fleet at Okinawa, while the Japanese troops were fighting a hopeless battle against US Marines. In both theatres, the result was pre-ordained, and in both theatres, all of the combattants knew it. The only differences that I can think of is that the Japanese knew the Russians better, having faced them off and on since the 1900's. It may not have been a war of "racial extermination" as some have characterized the war between the US and Japan. The only other difference was that the Russians were far more mobile than were the Japanese, or than the Americans for that matter. It is true that the tactics used by the Russians were far different than those used by the Americans... but did that have an effect on the Japanese reactions in the two theatres? I'd love to know.
Dean.
 
CanadianCombat said:
probably because they knew there was no chance of winning, and a mass suicide was not the answer.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that doesn't answer Dan's question of "why", why they came to that conclusion and other Japanese armies did not. Suicide Banzi charges where designed just to die on a blaze of glory, not really turn the tide. Kamakazi attacks etc. This was a culture that tortured and beheaded our POWs because they thought surrender was the worst thing you could do, worse than committing suicide.

Good question Dan! I don't know the answer, make sure to tell us when you do find it.
 
The Russian that attack them was huge, the Japanese were just steam rollered out of sight. It is well worth reading this Russian campaign in Manchuria for the sheer size of men and material.
 
Actually, I can answer that. In both cases, the Japanese were completely outclassed by the opposition. They knew that they could not beat the Americans, and apparently even told the Germans that an American amphibious assault could not be stopped. In every case from Guadalcanal on where the Americans attacked the Japanese, they had sea control and total air superiority. IMO, hardly conducive to suicide attacks, but then again, I am not Japanese.
In China, the Russians also had complete air superiority as well as mobility that the Japanese could only stand and watch. The Russians went right around and through the Kwantung army, which, being leg infantry with little in the way of effective anti-armour weapons, were completely unable to do anything but stand and die... or surrender.
In both theatres, the situation was passably the same. Nowhere to retreat, no supplies, no reinforcements, no support of any kind. Yet in the Pacific there were suicide infantry attacks, kamikaze attacks on US ships, the Yamato mission, and on and on and on... but not in China! I don't get it.

Dean.
 
that is weird.. True to say that the Americans had superior technology during the war, but still, the Japanese refused to surrender and fought till death, and we all know what they did(banzai charge, kamikaze)
Against Russia, twas the opposite...just like it wasnt the same kind of Japanese soldiers..
 
also take into consideration that the russian assault into china was in china, while the american forces were invading the japanese homeland.
 
[/quote] also take into consideration that the russian assault into china was in china, while the american forces were invading the japanese homeland.
Not quite true. The Japanese never surrendered to invading Americans, whether it was in the Philippines, Guadalcanal, or anywhere else. The only home island invaded was Okinawa, and it was the last.
The Russians invaded China, and were very close to Korea and tke Kuriles. While their naval power may not have allowed them to mount the same kind of invasion that the Americans were considering, they were able to take the Kuriles with what they had, and I am sure that the Japanese knew it. Besides, they had NOTHING with which to stop the Russian navy. The Russians were definitely able to take China, and would have easily had the capability to go all the way to Vietnam and Burma. Do you really think that the Japanese would have taken that lying down? Knowing that the Russians and Americans were allies, I also think the Japanese would have been scared witless considering the possibility of Russian divisions disembarking from American landing craft in the north while the Americans invaded from the south, while Russian bombers attacked Japan from Korea. Somehow, I think that the Japanese should have considered that and that they would have used the same tactics to avoid those possibilities.

Dean.
Click to expand...
 
There was a high number of honour suicides from the Japanese Army that surrendered to the Russians. You must fully understand the ideals of honour in the Japanese psyche. Death at your enemies or your own hand failing that was the only acceptable option. Surrender was a shame that would be visited upon your family. Defeat carries much the same shame as suicide does in the west.

Most of the troops of the Kwantung army were bypassed and as they realised their fate the killed themselves. I lived up in that neck of the woods for two years and have interviewed a lot of old timers that SAW what happened. Pretty shocking stuff but once you get inside the mind of the Japanese soldier it makes sense.
 
It could be that Japanese fought to the death because they were a much smaller unit, they were well dug in most times and just fought till they were overwhelmed. Many of these Bunkers were ten to twenty men and once the battle had started it was to finish. Once the Americans or any other attacking unit had suffered heavy casualties then they don't go in for prisoners.
 
Most of the troops of the Kwantung army were bypassed and as they realised their fate they killed themselves
Click to expand...

Would you mind giving me your source for this information? One of the real problems that I have found is the total lack of info on the entire Russian Far East Campaign. It's too bad, because the little that I have read is fascinating.

Dean.[/quote]
 
The source was from 23 interviews I did during 2002-2004 in Anshan, Benxi, Lushun, Dalian, Dandong, Changchun and a few other hamlets with some Chinese WWII veterans of their resistance and common folk who saw it first hand. I will try to source the name of a documentary film about it as well. Its in Chinese but its not so difficult to get someone to translate, IF I can find someone who knows the name. I saw it once on TV here but was unable to find it on DVD. History is not that popular here, myths are.
 
Well, it took me a while, but I finally figured it out. Some of you have alluded to the answer, and you did not even know it. Yes indeed, the Japanese army did indeed have a sudden infusion of common sense. The war was winding down and the first atomic bomb had been dropped when the attack began. In short order (11 days) the Soviets advanced 1000 kilometers against the Japanese, whose army lacked experience as well as the equipment, supplies and ammunition necessary to fight a campaign. The Russians had everything: modern armour, artillery, weapons, aircraft and naval forces, as well as accurate intelligence, and the greatest intangible of all, vast amounts of experience. The Japanese had next to nothing as all of their armour and air forces were obsolete and the army had been gutted to reinforce units in other theatres.
The Japanese offered stiff resistance but it was useless. The Russians simply pushed them out of the way and continued, but ironically many of the well entrenched positions that Japanese held were never attacked. As a result, many of the units of the Japanese army were not engaged when the most surprising thing of all occurred: They received the order to surrender.
The second atomic bomb had been dropped, and the Japanese government had signalled to the allies that they were willing to accept the terms that had been offered. one of the terms was the immediate cessation of hostilities, so the government immediately ordered the Kwantung Army to surrender, and the resulting confusion must have been overwhelming. As Bulldogg stated, "Death at your enemies or your own hand failing that was the only acceptable option." But they were ordered to surrender, so the conventional rules of Bushido could not apply. Thus, many surrendering troops did not commit hara-kiri as they were never actually defeated.
I wonder if they felt lucky!

Dean.
 
bulldogg said:
The source was from 23 interviews I did during 2002-2004 in Anshan, Benxi, Lushun, Dalian, Dandong, Changchun and a few other hamlets with some Chinese WWII veterans of their resistance and common folk who saw it first hand. I will try to source the name of a documentary film about it as well. Its in Chinese but its not so difficult to get someone to translate, IF I can find someone who knows the name. I saw it once on TV here but was unable to find it on DVD. History is not that popular here, myths are.
Click to expand...

Jeez, that was fast. I did not notice that you were online. Thanks for the prompt answer. Just out of curiosity, what was the purpose of the interviews?

Dean.
 
I am fascinated with WWII history and it is less sensitive an issue than say interviewing the Chinese veterans of the Korean War. ;) Not that I would ever do that without permission mind you. 8) Since my civil war studies in uni I have been more interested in first hand primary sources when available and here I was presented with an opportunity to learn firsthand from a very rarely tapped source indeed. I had no agenda, just to collect their stories as they are rapidly passing on and for the most part their stories have been either neglected or turned into sensational propagandistic movies. I highly doubt anyone will publish it but I have learned a lot about an area where, as you said, there are few sources in the western world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top