Check it out

Many soldiers decades after the war ended still refused to surrender. Its an amazing feat of human endurance.

I dont know any single people more dedicated and devoted than the Japanese. Their soldiers are perhaps the most loyal and devoted out of all armed forces.

There are brave soldiers in every country but the Japanese soldiers in WW2 were something else. I know a great many of them were cruel and savage but they were also extremely brave and resilient.

What kind of brainwashing does it take to be so loyally devoted to your country and emperor?

some or maybe it was just one...a japanese soldier from world war 2 was still hiding out somewhere in a tropical forest in the philippines...i think he finally went back to japan in the 1970's......

nationalism. see the difference with Chinese and Japanese form of Confucian tradition is that Chinese is family oriented, while Japanese is community/nation oriented.

^I think this can be found in both Chinese and Japanese. But Japanese take it to the extreme, which is represented by the Bushido code.

DR I'm pretty sure that you've made a thread about it before.

*rolls eyes*

you've posted before

there is a thread about this already.......anyway, that Japanese soldier appeared in the History Channel and he lives in Brazil now. Apparently, he terrorized the entire population at a Filipino village.........

Yeah, those j@p soldiers are fu-king crazy. I rememeber watching the History channel 'Colors of war' and when the Americans attacked Iwo Jima with 100,000 men while the Japanese only had 20,000 the Americans still suffered more casualties. And it was one of the toughest battles in the history of the US Marine Corps.

thats ridiculous. In every battle the Japanese fought against the Americans in WW2, the japanese always sustained significantly more casualties. Except PEarl Harbor of course.

The Japanese were fond of banzai attacks, mass attacks, because they had so little firepower compared to the americans.

I don't know where you got your sources. Go google it up or something before you make such ridiculous statements.

pwned? *shrug* i'm too lazy to check my own facts :P

but well the japanese do have that honorable death...seppuku

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/846713/posts

" This would be the only battle in the Pacific where the invaders suffered higher casualties than the defenders."

"The American boys had killed about 21,000 Japanese, but suffered more than 26,000 casualties doing so"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/846713/posts

"This would be the only battle in the Pacific where the invaders(Americans) suffered higher casualties than the defenders(Japanese)."

"The American boys had killed about 21,000 Japanese, but suffered more than 26,000 casualties doing so"

wow I never knew that, interesting to know

Damn, DR maybe you should "Go google it up or something before you make such ridiculous statements."

Once again DR, stop insulting everyone that does not agree with you!

They should make the movie, Japanese version of Castaway, "Holdouts"...

okay, are u guys retarded?

casualties = killed + wounded

The americans killed 21,000 Japanese. Thats killed in combat. There were probably much more Japanese wounded.

The Americans suffered 26,000 casualties. That does not mean 26,000 deaths. The ratio from dead to wounded is usually 1 to 4, which mean maybe under 8000 or so were killed. The rest were wounded.

Gee, whats worse, 21,000 dead or 8,000 dead? Do the math you morons.

Dude, i didnt say the Americans suffered more deaths i said they suffred more casualties.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/846713/posts

"This would be the only battle in the Pacific where the invaders(Americans) suffered higher casualties than the defenders(Japanese)."

and there wernt any more Japanese wounded beacause the Americans only kept only 200 prisoners out of the 22,000.

Well if I was a general during wartime I guess it would all depend on whether those "casualties" could continue to fight for me or not. 26,000 casualties no longer able to fight or 21,000 dead? I would take the 21,000 dead.

You people are bunch of morons... do a freakin search before you conclude with an answer....

Er, Thats exactly what i did. -_-

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/846713/posts

It says it right there "This would be the only battle in the Pacific where the invaders(Americans) suffered higher casualties than the defenders(Japanese)."

I'd rather have 26000 casualties than 21000 killed. The ratio of killed to wounded was usually 1 to 4 in american forces. and some of those wounded might have been able to recover and join the war later so out of the 26000, i estimate maybe a few thousand were able to return to combat.

whereas those 21000 Japanese killed will never fight again.

I recently watched a movie about an American pilot and a Japanese pilot on a very "cast away" like island in the pacific and it made for some great comedic and dramatic scenes, I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject its called "Hell in the Pacific"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063056/