The concept of not surrendering: What are the reasons?

This answer was done in a discussion on what caused the Japanese psyche on war and death to change. See my other post regarding conscription service for other references. This post will not be a Q&A but a transcirpt of discussion.

However, I think you place a little bit too much emphasis on the sort of propaganda that young children read, and in doing so you ignore some certain other aspects leading to Japanese militarization. For instance, you mention how the Great Depression was a major impetus towards causing Japanese men to join the military. If anything, Japan got off quite mildly compared to the rest of the world, and Japanese exports were booming in the early 1930s. I think you may be conflating how the poor former samurai families who were essentially given a plot of land and kicked out of the social order ended up joining the military in droves as a result of their change in economic status with the Great Depression. If anything, the 1923 Kanto Earthquake has a bigger impact on the Japanese psyche than the Depression.

Another detail worth mentioning was the growing racial animosity between the Chinese and the Japanese. Events like the Tungchow Mutiny intensified these tensions, especially as unilaterally portrayed as they were in the Japanese press at the time. The fanaticism mentioned in the original question-which I would also interpret as a "willingness to fight to the death" I think was also influenced by Japanese military propaganda that surrendering to the Allies would result in torture, mutilation, and death at their hands-a not entirely unjustified allegation given the Allied refusal to take Japanese prisoners and take "trophies"-specifically, bones and skulls-of dead Japanese soldiers.

Yes, I do put probably more than a little more emphasis on the propaganda. And I love songs more than anyone!

(On a sidenote, my first answer was gone when I mistakenly logged out... I swear it had more information!)

But one important note is that the propaganda itself started in the 1890s. If you count the kids as teaching these propaganda, and then take a guess at how old people will be when they grew up. By the 1930s you already have a population that from 1-50 that went through the propaganda.

Now, whether this had a greater effect on the change in the attitude, or lesser compared to the Kantou Earthquake. I think it can be up for debate. And I am saying this because there is no definite study nor can there be, there was no such thing as a opinion poll back then.

What I do agree with you though, is how the growing animosity between the Japanese public and the Chinese public had with each other that probably more than helped fuel the sense of urgency.

As you mentioned, events such as the Tungchow incident, Shanghai monk incident(Orchestrated by some Army officers), the Hankou Incident, and even before then the Boxer rebellion shaped the fear, and that fear was especially evident on newspapers.

On April 4th, 1927. The title of the event on Asahi Newspaper was the following

暴民襲来して掠奪暴行を恣にす

Rioters attack and pillage!

邦人五名不明、水兵一名惨殺

5 Japanese civilians missing, 1 sailor killed.

在留邦人全部汽船に避難

All Japanese civilians have taken refugee in river boats.

漢口の日本租界襲撃

Japanese leased area in Hankou (Nanking) under attack!

I'd say this incident with combination to the other instances of Chinese attacks was what severely shifted the foreign policies to China than anything else. Even though just a few years ago, Japan returned Shangdong provinces back to China.

Although, on topic I don't think the nations militarization has much to do with the populations view on the war. Japanese militarization is a processed that started in Meiji, had a hiccup in Taisei, and back into full force after the string of incidents in China.

With regards to "willingness" to fight to the death. I think that requires quite a lot more explanation than what you and I gave. The military propaganda on the Americans was in effect, but I would argue that it didn't do as much as people give it credit for. It probably reinforced the thought moreso than planting it. The principle to never surrender was a long tradition.

During the First Sino-Japanese war, the commander Yamagata said this when he was questioned about the treatment to the Qing soldiers.

"敵国側の俘虜の扱いは極めて残忍の性を有す。決して敵の生擒する所となる可からず。寧ろ潔く一死を遂げ、以て日本男児の気象を示し、日本男児の名誉を全うせよ。"

"The brutal treatment to our prisoners is acceptable. If you get captured alive by your enemy, it is better to die a clean death, that is what it means to be a Japanese men, that is the honor that shall be carried by the Japanese men."

This, was said in 1894. If a general officer had this line of though, it should be not hard to think that the soldiers under his command shared his train of thought as well.

Another glimpse into the thinking can be seen during the discussion of the Geneva convention. The Japanese government, although singed both, only approved the ground combat geneva convention. They never approved on the 1929 Geneva convention regarding the prisoners of war.

In government secret document no. 1984-3. The 2 main reason to not approving the treaty of 1929 was given as follows.

1. 帝國軍人ノ觀念ヨリスレバ俘虜タルコトハ豫期セザルニ反シ外國軍人ノ觀念ニ於 テハ必シモ然ラズ從テ本條約ハ形式ハ相互的ナルモ實質上ハ我方ノミ義務ヲ負フ片 務的ノモノナリ

"The Empire's soldier's thinking is to never become a prisoners, the foreigners and their expectation of the treatment is not compatible with our culture. The signing of the treaty, although on it's face equal will not become equal in the face of reality. Our side will have to provide protection only for the enemies, while our enemies will have none to take care for."

1. 俘虜ニ關スル優遇ノ保證ヲ與フルコトトナルヲ以テ例ヘバ敵軍將士ガ其ノ目的達 成後俘虜タルコトヲ期シテ空襲ヲ企圖スル場合ニハ航空機ノ行動半徑倍大シ帝國 トシテ被空襲ノ危險益大トナル等我海軍ノ作戰上不利ヲ招クニ至ル虞アリ

"With the guarantee of protection as a prisoner, our enemies shall be able to complete their air bombing mission and parachute in as a prisoner. Under this assumption our enemies shall have 2 times more operation range using their aircrafts. As we are a island nation, and with reliance to our navy, this will become an un-acceptable condtion for our navy to operate normally."

We only really need to concern ourselves with the first point here, but suffice to say. The culture to not surrender was already so deep into the Japanese Army by 1929 that they denied approving and following the Geneva convention based on that!

On top of all that, I think one speech by our second favorite WW2 leader Tojo needs to get a mention here. In 1941, January, Tojo made a speech that was broadcasted to all soldiers. It was basically a guideline to how to act as frontline soldiers.

Under it, one line stood out for most people in the section of "Life and Death", "生きて虜囚の辱めを受けず, translates into "To not live under the shame of being a live prisoners.". Now, that is your straight up answer on an official guidline. Remember, this speech was written pre The Great Eastern Asia War.

That is not to say everyone believed in it, or followed it. But a significant amount of people did to create peer pressure to it.

A famous example is from Admiral Nagumo during the Battle of Saipan. Under the final "Gyokusai" (Shattering Jade, to suicide) order, he write out a final order to all the garrison troops on Saipan. In there, this line is in there.

"断乎進んで米鬼に一撃を加へ、太平洋の防波堤となりてサイパン島に骨を埋めんとす。戦陣訓に曰く『生きて虜囚の辱を受けず』。勇躍全力を尽して従容として悠久の大義に生きるを悦びとすべし"

"Ignore death and give the American devils ones last hit, let the Island of Saipan become the breakwater of the Pacific that is built up by our bones. Just like what the battlefield teachings said, "Don't live with the shame as a live prisoner" We shall move with our full strength and bravery, and take it in as a joy that our legacy may live on rather than us."

American devil myth may have contributed to the fear, and the treatment of them as prisoners, but death? Death was always a part of the military. Death was worshiped by the military. (Sidenote, I am NOT talking about the Saipan civilian suicides, that has been greatly contributed to the American devil myth.)

There's a reason military personnel referred to each other as being a flower of Sakura since the 1910s. (The song of 同期の桜, Cherry blossoms of the same school year)It is a huge symbolism of the life they wish to be, to become a cherry blossom and bloom with a short and beautiful life.

I agree that this topic is incredibly complex and requires probably a lifetime of research to truly grasp. But I do think that there must have been other factors as well. You cite Yamagata in the First Sino-Japanese War, but along with generals like him there were ones like Admiral Itoh, who released all his prisoners to return home and personally made attempts to get the Qing commander to surrender peacefully after the battle of Weihaiwei. For that matter, I bring up General Honma from the Philippines, the so-called "Butcher of Bataan," who contrary to his nickname, had by most accounts spent a large amount of his time countermanding subordinates' attempts to execute Filipino authorities and US prisoners, attempted to organize camps and food for prisoners, and was finally recalled back to Japan for being too nice to the Filipinos. His subordinates didn't seem to care for what his actions despite being responsible for a relatively swift and unlikely victory.

Your points on the failure of the Japanese government to ratify the Geneva Convention, and of Tojo's quote to fight until the death (given that he never actually saw combat w) as being symptoms of the "no surrender" attitude of the Japanese high command are quite valid, though. I do disagree with Nagumo's intentions in his last suicide order though-the man had been broken by his failure to stop the war, and then his failure at Midway, and it is fairly likely that he wanted to maintain a reputation of fighting to the end, instead of being remembered as a failure, but that hardly detracts from the fact that death was indoctrinated as being a natural thing in the military.

Agreed, the main problem with trying to find an explanation is that it becomes trying to explain human psychology.

Not that there is anything wrong with that inherently, but then it becomes a giant speculation that no one can prove.

At the most what we can do is to see what the culture was at the time, and do an educated guess. Maybe read contemporary newspaper using a fresh mind and act as if you are one of soldiers reading it. (I really love Japanese wartime propagandas.)

But even then, what else can we do? I always had a little issue when I read any comments on sentiments of people or the general population. We cannot know what is going on the persons head, unless they wrote them down, which a lot of them didn't. Or that it got lost in the battle.

Maybe this is one of those questions that at most we can give out the facts, and let people to decide and speculate on what may be the real reason.