[TopAce]

...it's that they hate the military for losing, and for surrendering.(emphasis added)

It's the Emperor that decided to surrender, not the military, and they had a very convincing reason for doing so.

[NGTM-1R]

It's the Emperor that decided to surrender, not the military, and they had a very convincing reason for doing so.

While this is true, and to the point that the Emperor had to force it down the Army's throat with a direct imperial decree and the implied threat the head of the Army would be an unperson if he failed to obey, the cultural system ensured that the military took the blame.  In the Imperial Throne was, and to be honest still is, invested with the spirit of Japanese society, the very claim to be Japanese. It simply wasn't and isn't possible to place blame on the Emperor for anything without blaming all Japan. And they were not and are not prepared to do this.

[Kosh]

really? Japan is both culturally and constitutionally opposed to the use of military force to the point of being unable to defend themselves, where they used to be a nation devouring military state. you don't think this shows some degree of learning?

They are constitutionally opposed to the use of military force only because their constitution was written by the American occupation force. Nightm1r answered the other point about culture.

While this is true, and to the point that the Emperor had to force it down the Army's throat with a direct imperial decree and the implied threat the head of the Army would be an unperson if he failed to obey, the cultural system ensured that the military took the blame.  In the Imperial Throne was, and to be honest still is, invested with the spirit of Japanese society, the very claim to be Japanese. It simply wasn't and isn't possible to place blame on the Emperor for anything without blaming all Japan. And they were not and are not prepared to do this.

don't you just love feudalism?

[ssmit132]

If you actually had some concept of how Japan culturally views WW2, you would realize it doesn't. It's not that they learned anything; it's that they hate the military for losing, and for surrendering. It's still actually dangerous to openly admit you're a veteran in Japan.

Isn't that because many Japanese people consider surrender the height of dishonour or something like that?

Also, I read this about the Japanese military (well, its airforce mainly) this morning. True, it's from 1984 and is in a book about aircraft, but it's still interesting and part of this issue; here's an excerpt:

In contrast with its neighbours, Japan has some of the most effective combat aircraft available, yet is acutely embarrassed at the thought of being so well equipped. A strong pacifist reaction to the defeat in World War 2 expresses itself in fervent anti-militarism, so much so that for cosmetic reasons the air force, army and navy are officially titled Air, Ground and Maritime Self-Defense Forces. Any attempts to provide these forces with equipment of an overtly offensive nature or to bestow the ability to operate outside Japanese territory have been firmly resisted as being provocative.

This has been the cause of some political disagreement with the USA in recent years, the USA's efforts to convice Japan that it should spend more on defending its vital sea lanes (out to 1,000 miles/1600 km) having fallen on seemingly deaf ears. Such is the desire to limit military expenditure that defence budgets have been restricted to under one per cent of the gross national product in recent years, placing Japan in the same league as some of the world's poorest and least-industrialized countries in defence-expenditure terms.

[mxlm]

What a wonderful idea!  We abandon a fellow democratic country and trading partner in exchange for some bases in a potentially hostile nation that would be completely at the mercy of a totalitarian regime with no love for America.  Why don't we make you Secretary of Defense?

Because you couldn't afford me.

[karajorma]

Because you couldn't afford me.

I'm sure you're right. Pointless wars are expensive.

[S-99]

No one should be too inclined to believe this article fully. First thing is that the photo's of the protesters are the same crowd of people from slightly different positioning and angle. Secondly the photos are all close ups of the crowd. I am less likely to believe just from this article that it was a protest of 6000 people, but more like a protest of 50. Which leads to the deducing that this problem in japan may not be as big as it's made out to be. This article needs more information than some ****ing close up pictures and government "he said she said". Trying to pass off a beaver dam as the hoover dam they are.

I'm not saying that this protest didn't happen, but that the amount of protesters looks to be exaggerated.
With articles like this popping up more often. Articles that don't cite sources, don't have actual fact comparison, no one interviewed, and have not enough or improperly presented details; high reason for doubt and reason to watch out where you get your news from, especially from the internet. Journalists can and will put together sham stories for creating media sensations.