Their idea of sensitivity training only consists of try not to step on our own wounded if possible.
The problem is that while they themselves would not act violently, many of them seem to tolerate, even to condone, those that do. While there are laudable instances of Moslem leaders fully cooperating with American law enforcement, polls have repeatedly shown a disturbingly high number of Moslems who quietly admire terrorists.
Bingo
Actually, Japanese troops on occasion feigned surrender to lure Americans into traps. Taking a Japanese prisoner was fraught with danger for Americans. Towards the end of the War, more Japanese did want to surrender, but that wasn’t always available, either because of decisions by their officers, or distrust by the Americans.
A white flag does not necessarily mean surrender. In the instance cited, the individual with the white flag was offering the enemy the opportunity to surrender. It is simply a signal asking for a temporary cease fire. The Japanese, ultimately did surrender, big time. Japanese troops rarely surrendered individually, but it was not never.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazuo_Sakamaki
I remember seeing an interview (or a documentary,can't remember which) in which the subject of medical personnel during WWII was discussed.At least one person (a WWII vet,IIRC) said that on the whole the Germans respected the red cross on helmets,vehicles and uniforms...including on the battlefield.OTOH,it was said that the Japanese specifically targeted Navy Corpsmen and Army Medics on the battlefield.
Speaking in general terms I can say categorically that in my travels over the years (First World *and* Third World) I've learned that not all cultures are the same *and* that not all cultures are *equal*.
My parents lived in Japan a few years after the war. The only thing I could ever get out of my mother about the experience was how cheaply they looked at life. The Asian culture has proven that over and over.
White flags also signify parley. Not necessarily surrender.
It’s important that Americans learn the difference between the western and Asian way of doing things.
In the West, individualism is held up as the highest value, but in the East, an individual doesn’t really matter *out of the context* of their family and place in society.
Large, wealthy and powerful *extended* families tend to be dynastic, and with closer bonds than say to their neighbors or town or city.
However, typical families are tied to their caste in society and their city or town.
So, for example, if a fisherman in a village offended the emperor or one of his major lieutenants, it would be regarded as an offense *by his village*, for which they would all be punished.
The clearest expression of the difference between western and Asian thinking are the Russians, who are philosophically tuned to both, yet comfortable with neither. For this reason, they can do things that would be shocking to westerners, but rationalize them in a half sensible way.
For example, in Afghanistan, the women and children actively helped their men fighting the Russians, so the Russians adopted the American idea of “concentration camps” (less the stigma). Putting the women and children in camps, with food and water and clothing and barracks. To probably live better than they did at home. Not intolerable.
But they still made trouble in the camps, so took far more guards than the Russians were able to give. So they came up with an idea.
Dig a slit trench, line it with plastic, and fill it with water that had a little blister agent in it. Make the women and children walk its length, which would take a layer of skin off their feet and ankles, so they would have to go around on their hands and knees until the skin regrew. Thus keeping them out of trouble.
This, as the Russians said, “was the humanitarian thing to do, as otherwise they would have no choice but to kill the women and children; that technically *might* be done according to the Geneva Conventions.”
So by disabling them, it is saving their lives. Russian humanitarian logic.
Of course the outcry in the west was huge. So the Russians backed down, rather puzzled as to why the West thought it was worse to injure than to kill.
The bottom line is that Asian morality and ethics do exist, but to westerners they are so alien that they seem brutal and inhuman. Oddly enough, many Asians see western morality and ethics, if not equally bizarre and alien, as at least illogical.
Good article but I take one exception. It is not an “American sense of civilized behavior” but a Christian one. If America were ever to loose its Christian foundations it would become as brutal as anyone else.
Stephen Ambrose (IIRC) wrote in one of his books that an ambulance full of American wounded took a wrong turn and ended up at a German roadblock.
The officer looked at the white-faced driver, checked inside, saw it was full of wounded and told the driver to turn around and get the Hell out of there.
About an hour later another vehicle came down the road, stopped, dumped off some large boxes, turned around and hauled posterior.
After waiting for the boxes to blow up, some guys (probably expendables) were sent out to see what was in them. It turned out it was full of American cigarettes.
Never saw anything even remotely comparable to that happen in the Pacific.
bkmk