Hi All, The little that I have read regarding the Japanese code of "Bushido" seems to imply that it was a definite strategic advantage to Japan. But I've been wondering! The Japanese lost many good men from the lowly grunt in the field to highly rated Generals and Admirals. Valuable pilots were lost since the Japanese pilots did not use parachutes and little emphasis was placed on rescue. Soldiers were encouraged, if not forced, to fight to the death or commit suicide. I'm wondering if all of this unnecessary lost of manpower was really a strategic advantage to the allies rather than to the Japanese? Thanks in advance. Bob Guercio
The "Code of Bushido" or the "Way of the Warrior" that was in effect prior to, and during, WW II was a corruption of the ancient rules by which the Samurai warriors conducted their lives. Many aspects of the ancient code were exaggerated and taken to extremes beginning before WW I and continuing into the 1920's and 1930's, because the Japanese militarists felt that Japan was materially and technically weak and that extreme psychological and emotional measures would have to compensate for that weakness. It was felt that Bushido, taken to extremes, would provide moral strength to overcome material weakness. It was hardly a strategic strength, rather it was a symptom of perceived material weakness. The Japanese militarists created a myth of superior Japanese moral strength and from that extrapolated that the Japanese fighting man was superior in fighting abilities because of the superior moral aspects of Japanese culture (as exemplified by extreme Bushido). The Japanese were absolutely convinced that the individual Japanese soldier was the best there was at hand-to-hand fighting, for example, and tailored their tactics to take advantage of this supposed strength. When the Japanese came up against American and Australian troops in the Pacific fighting, however, they usually suffered severe defeats in hand-to-hand fighting. About halfway through the Pacific war, some senior Japanese officers began to comprehend that superior moral strength did not begin to compensate for material inferiority. The ruthlessness that the "Code of Bushido" encouraged in Japanese fighting forces actually worked against the Japanese because it caused the Allied fighting men to develop an attitude of "no quarter" where Japanese were concerned. It also caused the senior Japanese leaders to grossly overestimate their abilities against the Allies and led directly to numerous defeats because of this.
A do-discipline means a stylised form meant to represent a cultural perspective. Bu-do would represent a typical modern dojo of paid students who don't bash each others' skulls in during training. A Bu-jinkan dojo would represent something a little more "live" in terms of applicable combat, though the training may very well be unconventional enough to be reasonably dangerous. Except for very few, rather selective family traditions Bujinkan forms have not been practised since the middle ages (some bujinkan traditions evolved into Samurai families way back when, others into criminals and terrorists, many began as Shugenja warrior-monks ca. 12th century as the warrior culture began to develop fully). Bushi means warrior, just a general term and nothing in common with the Samurai aristocrat in and by itself. Many Samurai had little or no experience on the battlefield (some were infamously inexperienced). Battlefield conscripts were the bushi class, it is a soldier. That's the guy who fought the wars. Bushi-do is a stylised form of the role. It is to say, "remember when the conscripted soldiers once served their Samurai masters, whom were organised under the Daimyo in direct contact with the divine on Earth (the Imperial Majesty or the Shogun depending on your politics), well we wish to bring this period of Japanese greatness anew." A contemporary Japanese could take an alternative meaning to the term Bushido as being the many zen practises and core philosophy of the Samurai. This is a bit vanilla however and obviously doesn't apply to any specific instance or genuine independent research. Mostly it refers to a modernisation of the role of foot-soldiers within the old Japanese warrior culture. In fact where the core infrastructure of the Samurai, as mentioned as often as not drawn directly from theological roots could be perceived as definite tactical (read: not strategic) advantage, the Bushido code of foot-soldier conduct is by comparison ridiculously dehumanising. It is very much like the typical totalitarian edict that the individual is entirely and completely subordinate to the state. A Samurai would only commit suicide for definitive political statement, it is the precise equivalent of Prince Charles shooting himself on television due to a policy of British Parliament, it gets somebody's attention, ney it demands it. A Bushi does it because he's told to, he is told to because he is unimportant, it might be just because his commander has more time to pack his things before retreating, or so the commander can claim he used every resource before retreating to his superiors. Any well educated Japanese was/is well aware of all this.
These posts are excellent, and stimulate thought. DA's post is applicable to the Third Reich as well.
