When aggressors receive honor
Imagine, if you will, a documentary being broadcast on PBS, the gist of which pertains to details surrounding an attack on the United States; an attack which claimed almost 3,000 American lives. Also imagine the producers of said documentary extolling the sacrifice made by those who took part, and perished, in the attack.
No, I’m not describing an apologetic for the events of 9/11, but the recent PBS NOVA episode, Killer Subs in Pearl Harbor. From NOVA’s website,
NOVA dives beneath the waters of Pearl Harbor to trace provocative new clues to one of the most tragic events of World War II—the sinking of the USS Arizona. More than 1,000 crew members perished in the greatest single loss of life in United States naval history. For decades, it has been thought that a bomb dropped by a Japanese aircraft sank the Arizona. But the discovery of a group of Japanese midget subs in and around Pearl Harbor has raised questions about the battleship’s final hours.
While the program primarily consisted of historical investigation, pertaining to the events of December 7, 1941, I was taken aback by remarks made at the conclusion of the episode in which the remains of one of the midget submarines was found. From the show transcript,
NARRATOR: Today Admiral Ueda visits the wreck of midget sub number 5 to honor the remains of pilot Sadamu Kamita and commander Masaji Yokoyama.
KAZUO UEDA: Mr. Kamita, here is your brother. Here is Mr. Dewa who accompanied you to Pearl Harbor.
NARRATOR: A cup full of sand is carefully removed from the seafloor, beneath the sealed control room of the midget sub, and given to Admiral Ueda to take home.
AKIRA IRIYE: The remains or the spirits of the dead, ah, from the submarine would now be reunited with the sand.
NARRATOR: Admiral Ueda presents the sand to Petty Officer Dewa. He brings it to a memorial service for Japanese sailors who lost their lives in midget submarines.
AKIRA IRIYE: The sand that was brought back from Hawaii is purified now, becomes Japanese soil, so to speak.
NARRATOR: For Kichiji Dewa, the mission is at last over. For Parks Stephenson, it’s always been about bringing the facts to light.
PARKS STEPHENSON: I want their accomplishment known, so that their sacrifice will have meaning.
NARRATOR: Time may yet uncover new details in the history of Pearl Harbor. And each step we take towards the truth of the heroic and tragic events of that day, not only honors the people who lived it, but serves future generations, as the real story is finally revealed.
(emphasis added)
Color me unimpressed, but I find no reason to honor, as sacrifice, the actions of those who were responsible for the deaths of 2,400 U.S. personnel, the subsequent deaths of those U.S. personnel who fought in the Pacific theater of World War II, and those civilians, throughout the Pacific, who fell to the bloody actions of the Empire of Japan at that time.
It seems to have become politically correct to view aggressors upon our land with a sympathetic hand, in some attempt to excuse their actions as either psychologically or culturally motivated or, worse yet, somehow caused by our own actions (read: WE are the guilty party). Indeed, Mark Steyn raised such issues in his book America Alone (which I reviewed, here). As I wrote,
Steyn quotes an Arabic proverb, “A falling camel attracts many knives,” and then applies it to Europe. It is falling and, as it falls, it continues to be attacked… We’ve feminized our approach through our multi-culturalism: we ask “why?”, we try to understand, we sympathize, we concede, and we apologize – and these are all seen as signs of weakness.
Yes, and now this sympathetic sentiment is being expressed in our view of history. Oliver Stone recently remarked that,
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy — these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history,
And when comparing two warring factions, motives and actions are melted into one as both the aggressor and those who are forced to fight to retain their freedom are seen as essentially the same. In the book, Flags of our Fathers, we are made witness to descriptions of the atrocities which occurred during the World War II battle of Iwo Jima. In a post I wrote for RedBlueChristian.com, I quoted the book’s author, James Bradley,
The Japanese army fought using the most ruthless tactics of any combatant in World War II. Their practice of “no surrender” meant they were unpredictable, as they fought far beyond the limits of a Westerner…
The Japanese soldier turned all Western logic on its head. If surrounded, a German would surrender; a Japanese would fight on. If wounded and disabled, an Englishman would allow himself to be taken prisoner; a Japanese would wait and blow himself and his captor up. The Marines could not treat the Japanese soldiers as they would hope to be treated. Their only choice was to exterminate him.
While the book was made into a movie, by Clint Eastwood, a companion movie, Letters from Iwo Jima, was also made and received more critical acclaim. Letters from Iwo Jima recounted the battle from the Japanese perspective, based on letters from the Japanese soldiers themselves. Hailed as an unprecedented demonstration of worldly citizenship, by Eastwood, the movie was also praised for humanizing “the enemy”, and paying honorable tribute to ill-fated men. Indeed, at ConversantLife.com, in a post listing the movie reviewer’s top 100 films of the 2000s, Letters from Iwo Jima is listed at #36 as an “other side of the story” companion piece to Flags of our Fathers.
Wow. I can’t wait to hear the “other side of the story” regarding Mohamed Atta and the other 18 terrorists responsible for the attacks on 9/11.
Our culture is deeply confused if it cannot distinguish between good and evil. To make such a distinction is not to diminish the humanity of the Japanese soldiers of World War II or of the Islamic terrorists of 9/11; such a distinction is, in fact, a deep recognition of the humanity of these individuals. Humans, created in the image of God can, and do, engage in evil acts. And the fact that there are two sides to a story does not mandate that both of those sides are valid.
Tagged with: 9/11 • empire of japan • flags of our fathers • iwo jima • letters from iwo jima • midget sub • Pearl Harbor • terrorist • World War II
Filed under: Culture • Ethics & Morality • Rusty • War
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Hi,
Thanks for bringing this story out because I don’t watch TV anymore and I don’t wish to support public media either. As a young Navy Corpsman my first visit to Pearl Harbor was exciting because it was a part of history I had studied from an early age and I would have the opportunity to learn more about it.
That excitement turned to a nauseaous feeling that many of those who wore the same insignia had perished so horribly, to remain in that watery grave for other generations to witness and learn.
The insulting thing is that in our state of affairs those who fought and served with great honor are being persecuted while our enemies, even long after the conflicts end; are being hailed for their bravery.
Disgusting.
Thanks for letting me vent.
“I want their accomplishment known, so that their sacrifice will have meaning.”
That is indeed a strange statement coming from a career naval officer and now defense contractor, who considers himself quite conservative and one who abhors political correctness.
Let me provide some insight on why I said that. I started my naval career in submarines. As such, I was involved in deadly cat-and-mouse games with the Soviets. It might be hard to explain if you weren’t there, but even though we were constantly positioning ourselves to kill the other, we respected each other on a purely professional level. It is quite possible to both hate and respect your enemy; in fact, if you don’t respect your enemy, chances are you will underestimate him.
In my investigation for the NOVA show, I talked with several veterans, mostly Americans, from the Pearl Harbor attack. I talked with men trapped inside the USS Oklahoma, burned in the fires aboard USS Arizona, wounded aboard USS West Virginia, to mention a few, so these were not uninvolved bystanders. Each of them personally suffered and watched shipmates die. You might be surprised to learn that with only one exception, each of those veterans echoed my sentiment above. What they have come to recognise, and what I have come to recognise during my service, is that it is the decision makers who wage just or unjust wars, while the common warfighter just does the best he can for his country.
All the evidence I came across during my investigation speaks to an extraordinary effort by this one 2-man midget sub crew to break through very competent, well prepared, anti-submarine defenses (which belies the common myth that the American defenses were asleep at the switch). As a submariner, I could not help but admire their dedication and expertise.
Let me venture to suggest why all of this is important. Iran and North Korea currently operate midget submarines; in fact, their inventory is not matched by any other nation. If we do not recognise, respect and appreciate the determination and ability that two Japanese submariners demonstrated in 1941, then we will underestimate the capability of our enemies today. If a small, two-man Japanese submarine could penetrate the defenses of America’s greatest fortress in the Pacific in 1941 and deliver a torpedo into the side of a capital ship, then an Iranian Ghadir midget sub with equal determination and ingenuity could deliver and detonate a nuclear device in one of America’s port cities. If you don’t respect your enemy and the sacrifices they are willing to make, then you will be caught unprepared. This is something that the real Pearl Harbor veterans understand and are trying to pass down to future generations.
That, to me, is the real lesson from Pearl Harbor that we needed to learn from this little submarine. My comment about recognising the sacrifice of the Japanese attackers was not PC-driven; rather, it was to acknowledge the threat they posed then and the threat their accomplishment poses to us now.
Parks Stephenson
Mr. Stephenson,
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my post. I appreciate the additional information you’ve given regarding the comments appearing on the NOVA episode (if only NOVA would have made the point so clearly).
I apologize for not responding to your comment sooner. The blogs I run or contribute to are an extra-curricular activity for me and, many times, other areas of my life take precedence. Consequently, I don’t check my peripheral e-mail accounts as often as I should.
I understand, and agree, with what you’ve stated (as a sidenote: thanks for not taking personal offense at what I wrote – my intent was not to denigrate anyone in particular). Having not served in the military, I cannot access the personal experience aspect of dealing with an enemy in the “cat-and-mouse” encounters you describe. It certainly makes sense that one, if truly faced with a tactical struggle, ultimately hinging on life or death, would be smart in being aware of and respecting his opponent’s capabilities. The concepts you speak of are quite evident when one reads historical accounts of military engagements.
On a personal note, beginning a little over a year ago, I started to take the issue of home and self defense more seriously. In my research into the topics I have also run into the admonition to respect your enemy’s capabilities, or else suffer the consequences. My concern, with this notion, would be the apparent blending of “respect” with “honor”. Isn’t it possible to respect an opponent’s capabilities while, at the same time, not honor their actions?
It was in that sense that I wrote my blog post, attempting to address the fact that the Japanese military, which engaged in a pre-meditated first strike attack on a U.S. military installation, was the same military responsible for so much destruction in the Pacific theater of WWII – destruction, I might note, upon civilian populations as well. In the literal sense, I suppose the word “sacrifice” simply means to give up something of value. In that sense the midget submarine pilots did sacrifice their lives. Yet I believe the notion of sacrifice, especially when applied to acts of aggression or war, entails much more than simply the giving of one’s life. There can be many reasons why someone would choose to sacrifice their life: e.g., family, friends, cause, country, religion, God. It was in that context that I expressed my disagreement with referring to the actions of the Japanese as a sacrifice. However, I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding our need to understand the willingness our enemy’s have to accomplish their goals, by whatever means they consider necessary.
I’m intrigued by your comments regarding Iran and North Korea’s midget submarine fleets, as well as the mistake of being unprepared despite knowledge of your enemy’s capabilities. I’ll have to research that further. It’s unfortunate that such implications weren’t addressed, even briefly, in the NOVA episode.
Thanks again for your comments.
Rusty Lopez
Rusty,
I can appreciate your viewpoint. I, myself, have been a defender of this country since I left my parents’ care going on 40 years ago. It’s good to know that there are still citizens of this country who appreciate just how fragile our freedoms actually are.
After I wrote my response, I realised that there were certain distinctions that I had failed to mention. First and foremost, I distinguish between combatants, who target only their opposite numbers, and terrorists, who avoid armed conflict and instead indiscriminately attempt to kill as many innocent people as possible. The kind of respect I mention does not extend to terrorists. I am aware that some will argue that killing is killing and there should be no distinction between combatants and terrorists. We do not have the adequate facilities here to dive into that debate. Let’s just say that right or wrong, I do make that distinction. In my perspective, terrorists are evil and unworthy of respect, other than what is required to anticipate their moves and properly defend against them.
It gets a bit more tricky when we narrow our attention down to the Japanese military of WW2. The Japanese military committed atrocities, there can be no doubt. Those atrocities embodied evil in its most vile forms and therefore deserve only condemnation. However, one cannot rightfully condemn an entire people for the actions of a relative few who, through a certain confluence of events, briefly gained power and exercised their evil on their fellow man. Narrowing down even farther to our two Japanese midget sub crewmen, we found two young men who considered honour and duty as their highest ideals and went off to war to fight what they were told by authority was an aggressor against their homeland. They had no idea that their fight would occur before a formal declaration of war. Their targets were strictly military. Even their ultimate boss, Admiral Yamamoto, planned his attack around recognised rules of war. It is also interesting to note that Yamamoto would not consider including the submarines in his attack plan until he was assured that the crews could be recovered. The idea of using submarines as “suicide subs” did not come into being until the Japanese Navy was forced to resort to more desperate measures after having lost so many of their best, including Yamamoto. Even though their was not a suicide mission, the Japanese midget submariners fully appreciated the American defenses and were realistic in their expectation of the odds against their safe return. As a warrior, I can sympathise with those who go into battle with the intention of giving their best against even the most depressing odds.
Another distinction I failed to make in my earlier post…the distinction between respect and honour. Respect to an enemy should be given at all times, at least to the extent that one respects, and therefore does not underestimate, the enemy’s capabilities. Honour may or may not follow after the battle has been waged, depending on how the fight was fought. After Japanese pilot Fusata Iida from the Soryu was shot down over NAS Kaneohe Bay during the Pearl Harbor attack, his body was buried with full military honours by the US Navy defenders. Even in the wake of devastating defeat in 1941, some US military still extended honour to a fallen enemy. I see that as being noble. It’s not that you honour the fact that your enemy attacked and killed your countrymen, it’s more an acknowledgment that they, like you, gave their lives honourably for their country. If events had transpired differently, it might be you in that pine box.
I did pay tribute to the two Japanese submariners of I-16tou. Not because they attacked my country a half-century ago, but rather because I appreciated the fact that they took their sense of duty to country seriously enough to risk their lives. My tribute did not extend to those in the Japanese military who dishonoured their uniform and country by committing atrocities. We won that war and imposed justice on those who practiced evil. We should also recognise those who fought an honest fight, because they were the ancestors of those who today are considered our allies. Nowadays, Japan is our partner in our struggle against modern evil. I believe that it is in our own national interest to give credit to our erstwhile enemy where it is due in order to strength our bond, so that when the next war finally comes, we will be able to count upon Japan as a true ally. Enemies and allies shift with the political winds…how long would you condemn a people who once followed a morally bankrupt government but who today share your enemy?
It’s not that I have a special affinity for the Japanese people. I had little association with, or understanding of, Japan before this search for the midget sub. I have spent much more time studying Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the latter of which I defended against during my time in service. Even though those were the most evil of regimes in human history, much of what I said here about the Japanese apply to some individuals in their armed forces, as well (although I would not consider modern-day Russia an ally just yet). Maybe my perspective is influenced by heritage…I am a Southerner who grew up being taught by “official” history that my ancestors fought an evil fight, that in the eyes of the United States, my family was the enemy. I had a different perspective…I knew that my family was not evil, had come from the same heritage as the North and had fought honestly for what they believed was the true American way (which, despite what the history books might tell you, had nothing to do with defending the institution of slavery). Fate is such that today, despite my being a descendant of the USA’s erstwhile enemy, I am totally committed to her flag.
Lastly, I believe that God wants us to forgive. Sometimes, we can’t…I have been unable to live up to Jesus’s teachings in regard to terrorists and when I was in a ballistic-missile submarine off the coast of the Soviet Union with 16 nuclear missiles aimed at Soviet cities, I was prepared to violate God’s Commandment against murder if we were ordered by our politicians to take the first shot of World War III. But I can try as best as I can to follow the Lord’s teachings.
You may appreciate now why NOVA did not delve into this in a one-hour show. The emotions we touched run deep and require much introspection and discussion. I understand that I haven’t fully explained myself here, but I hope now that you better understand why I said what I did in that very brief sound bite.
Parks
Parks,
Thanks for your response. You bring up some very good points on what is, truly, a complex issue. I’m aware of the mutual respect that opposing forces sometimes have for one another (e.g., the Luftwaffe’s treatment of downed airmen from the Allies), and understand the reasons you gave for why you made the statement on NOVA, which was my point of focus in my original post. As a sidenote: I’m also aware of culturally driven differences in how respect and honor are viewed and how those differences may nullify one person’s acknowledgment of contrary values of respect and honor (which I touched upon, in my original post, with my quote from Flags of our Fathers).
One clarification regarding my original post, however: I’m inferring, from your second response, that I was attributing evil to the Japanese people, as a whole, and continue to hold the Japanese people, today, responsible for the atrocities their ancestors committed during WWII. If my inference is correct, then let me state that such is not the case. My accusations against the evil perpetrated by the Empire of Japan during WWII (or, the Axis powers) is specific to those who either participated in, agreed with, or were complicit in such actions. While I also understand that many within the Japanese military (e.g., the pilots of the midget submarine) were sincere and exemplary in their commitment to duty and country, I think their individual actions should also be seen in light of the force in which they served. What was the intent of the Japanese military as a whole? In my limited research on the Japanese military in WWII, it seems to be apparent that they were trained with a different moral grounding than those within the U.S. (by the way, the same could be said of the German military of WWII). This does not, of course, mandate that all Japanese soldiers were brutal any more than it mandates that all U.S. soldiers were morally upright (which obviously was not the case). But how do we resolve incidents, such as the rape of Nanking, with honor and respect as a whole? I’m not attempting to continue a debate on the issue here, but only refer to these reasons as a basis for understanding why I have a difficult time honoring, as sacrifice, individual actions within the Japanese military of WWII.
Perhaps my inability to recognize the midget submarine pilots, in the same light as you, has more to do with the fact that I do not have the experience of military service, as you do. Life experience can be an invaluable asset and, judging from your comments, seems to have greatly shaped your outlook (for the good).
That said, I agree with you that Japan, and the Japanese people are indeed a strong ally of ours.
I’m not aware of future projects you have on the books, but it seems to me that your thoughts on forgiveness, cold war vs. terrorism, current level of preparedness, etc., would make for some very interesting books or productions!
Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that, despite what it may have appeared like from my original post, I thoroughly enjoyed the NOVA episode and found the events described to be fascinating! In fact, I recorded it to view again, with my father (who still remembers Dec. 7, 1941).
Regards,
Rusty
Rusty,
The issue is complex, indeed. I agree with you that the rape of Nanking was unpardonable. I also cannot understand the ideology of “Nihon gunkoku shugi,” where the Japanese military of the WW2 era placed its interests above the nation’s. In this environment, junior officers could assassinate seniors with whom they disagreed and even start wars independent of the actions of the Imperial government. Admiral Yamamoto himself was under constant threat of assassination by these ultra-nationalists until the Pearl Harbor operation made him a national hero. I do not see, on the whole, the Japanese Imperial system as being worthy of either emulation or adoration.
However, years of research looking for the missing midget submarine put me in the heads of the two submariners who participated in Yamamoto’s grand attack on the US Pacific Fleet. I saw nothing objectionable in the way they conducted their attack. They had a great apprehension going against the USA, the might of which they truly respected; so much so, they did not kid themselves about coming home alive. There was no trash talking or false bravado, just emotional goodbyes to families and low-key preparations for battle. In this very isolated case, I came to respect these two men as dedicated warriors.
Anyway, I think we both understand each other’s position. I am glad that you enjoyed the NOVA show and above all, I hope that it helped to fill a gap in our understanding of the attack. I would have liked more time to share more of our research and extrapolate on our findings, but out time allocation was limited. If you would like to read more, please visit the companion website (http://i-16tou.com) to the show that I built specifically to provide more depth than I was allowed in the show.
Aside from the emotional and moral components of the show, I am debating elsewhere on the factual content of the show with enthusiasts from the online Pearl Harbor community. The link to that forum is on my website.
Thanks again for the fascinating discussion,
Parks