A previous post offered a brief discussion of a complicated issue – the governance of wartime Japan. Such governance was a complicated, ritual process involving Emperor Hirohito and the Supreme War Council (“Big 6”). In the shadows of the ritual were the Lord of the Privy Seal (Kido) and other confidants of the royal family. Rather than detail the process, it is perhaps best explained by decisions around Ketsu Go.
On January 20, 1945 there was an Imperial audience in which senior Army and Navy leaders briefed the Emperor on the strategic concept for Ketsu Go. This was not a formal Gozen Kaigi (Imperial Conference), but an Imperial audience in which senior Army and Navy leaders briefed Hirohito. The principals in attendance were War Minister Anami and Army Chief Umezu – both hardliners – and Navy Chief Toyoda who at his point was supportive of the Army’s position.
It was not a detailed plan, but a strategic overview of Ketsu-Go in the context of the war: Leyte Island in the Philippines had fallen, there was no doubt that Iwo Jima and Okinawa would soon be invaded, and routine bombing of the home islands by B-29s had begun. All indications were that the southern island of Kyushu would be invaded in the late-summer to early-autumn of 1944. Most likely after the end of typhoon season which traditionally “ended” November 1st.
This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday (Year C) with the gospel from Luke 14:25-33. Jesus’ command of love makes it unthinkable that he commands hating one’s family all the while commanding to love those we do not know and are even our enemy. As Culpepper [292] notes, one should understand the Semitic hyperbole always uses stark differences so that the contrast is more clearly seen. The term misein (hate) denotes attitudes and modes of action rather than emotions. The point is not how one feels towards one’s parents, but rather one’s effective attitude when it comes to the kingdom.” This becomes clearer in 16:13, “No servant can serve two masters, he will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” This continues Luke 12:49-52 regarding division with the household caused by the proclamation of the reign of God.
Other scholars argue that “hate” is a Semitic expression meaning “love less” or “put in second place.” For instance: Genesis 29:30–31 says Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, and in the next verse, Leah is said to be “hated.” This sense of “hate” aligns with Matthew 10:37: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me…” — a softer but similar idea.
80 years ago today, September 2, 1945, the leaders of Japan signed the articles of surrender, ending the War in the Pacific. The treaty was signed aboard the USS Missouri anchored in Tokyo Bay. The document was signed by by representatives from Japan and from the Allied nations: the United States, Australia, New Zealand, China, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, Canada, and France.
The document was first signed by the Japanese foreign minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and by General Yoshijirō Umezu, Chief of the Army General Staff. Both were later convicted of war crimes. Shigemitsu served 7 years but later served again as Japan’s foreign minister. Umezu was sentenced to life in prison. He died in prison from cancer on less than a year into his sentence.
The majority of all Japanese representatives present at the signing were later convicted of war crimes. Emperor Hirohito was not present at the ceremony.
Ketsu-Go (“Operation Decisive”) was Japan’s final defense plan in World War II. It outlined the defense of the Japanese home island. At this point in the war the plan is an Imperial Army-led plan with the Imperial Navy playing a limited role apart from Naval Aviation. As noted in the previous post, as from the outset of the war the Imperial Army was “in charge” – not only in the Supreme War Council but in operational planning.
The goal of Ketsu-Go was to mass Japan’s remaining troops, planes, and special attack units (kamikaze) to repel the invasion, especially on the southern island of Kyushu, expected to be the first invasion point – as it would be in the Allied plan for invasion. The hope of Ketsu-Go was to make the battle so bloody and costly for the Allies that they would lose the will to continue the invasion and offer better surrender terms than complete and absolute surrender. At stake was Kokutai, an expression that literally means “national body” or “national essence”. This is explored in greater detail in the next post, but sufficient for now, this concept was not differentiated from the Emperor and the royal household.
In Ketsu-Go there was a fundamental realization that this would not be a repeat of their 1905 naval victory at Tsushima but only a last ditch effort to achieve what was always the goal of the original Kantai Kessen – an armistice with the United States that left Japan and its early war gains intact. Ketsu-Go would run head-long into the Allied demand for unconditional surrender that had no intention of leaving Japan militarized or with any of its early war gains. The allied demand for unconditional surrender had already been decided at the Casablanca Conference two years earlier (January 1943).
In addition there was a more fundamental issue at play: the idea of surrender. For the western soldier, surrender was not good, but it was logical. When the circumstances indicated that you’d run out of options the only “reasonable” options were retreat (live to fight another day) or simply live and place yourself at the mercy of your captor. For the Japanese soldier, surrender was the greater shame. The view was grounded in a complex mix of military indoctrination, cultural values, and fear of dishonor. Surrender was considered not only shameful but a betrayal of one’s duty to the Emperor and nation – to the Kokutai.
This difference was clear from the beginning of the war. Consider General Wainwright’s decision to surrender the Bataan Peninsula (Philippines) at the beginning of the war. The Filipino and American troops were out of ammunition and food; further resistance meant sure death. Their Japanese captors considered them shameful cowards who had betrayed their country – and were treated as such, the Death March of Bataan giving ample evidence.
The Japanese resolve to not surrender was experienced in every land battle from Guadalcanal to Okinawa. In campaigns such as Tarawa, Biak, Kwajalein, Saipan, Tinian, Guam, Peliliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa fewer than 2% of the Japanese garrison was captured. The remainder fought to the death. At the same time the casualty rates among allied ground troops in the Pacific were rising especially in comparison to the European Theater of Operations. Here are comparative casualty rates:
D-Day Normandy France – 6-7%
Tarawa – 20%
Peliliu – 35%
Iwo Jima – 37%
Okinawa – 27%
These differences were well known to the American public.
From the high-levels of strategy to the on-the-ground reality of war, the mindset of the warring parties could not be farther apart. Ketsu-Go was not a strategy to win a battle or defend the Japanese home islands from devastation and death. It was a strategy to exact a high price of Allied casualties to avoid the shame of surrender. Ketsu-Go reflected a mindset that, if implemented, would extract an unimaginable price in human life and leave the survivors with scars for a lifetime.
Ketsu-Go was first presented to the Emperor in January 1945. In the background of the plan was the uniquely Japanese concept of kokutai.
Image credit: various photographs from Naval Aviation Museum, National World War II Museum, and US Navy Archives.
This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday (Year C) with the gospel from Luke 14:25-33. Many scholars tag these verses as “The cost of discipleship.” They are unique and peculiar to Luke, focusing on the total dedication necessary for the disciples of Jesus. It must be remembered that Jesus is on the way to Jerusalem and has already predicted his death; so too should the disciples be prepared to leave all behind and make their commitment to the journey that will unfold before them.
Joel Green [564] notes that there are “important topical connections between the current narrative unit and the preceding one. Particularly in Jesus’ story of the great banquet (vv 15–24), he had introduced the possibility that one’s ties to possessions and family might disqualify one from enjoying the feast. As Jesus turns to address the crowds traveling with him, he lists allegiance to one’s family network and the shackles that constitute one’s possessions as impediments to authentic discipleship. Albeit for a different audience, then, Jesus posits the necessity of a corresponding transformation of life in both instances. This conjunction of emphases reminds us that the new practices counseled by Jesus in vv 7–14 are not isolated behaviors but, from Luke’s perspective, must flow out of a transformed disposition, reflecting new commitments, attitudes, and allegiances. That is, the conversion that characterizes genuine discipleship is itself generative, giving rise to new forms of behavior.”
It is here among the crowds of people that Jesus continues to teach discipleship to would-be disciples. Jesus makes no attempt to lure them, rather he makes clear that the way is not easy. Several phases reoccur in these verses:
“If any one comes to me [and does not] … he cannot be my disciple”(v.26)| “Whoever does not … cannot be my disciple.” (v.27) “everyone of you who does … cannot be my disciple.” (v.33)
The three conditions laid down concern renouncing family ties that would prevent one from becoming a disciple, bearing one’s cross, and forsaking possessions. Between the second and third sayings twin parables illustrate the folly of failing to consider the cost of an undertaking: the tower builder (vv.28-30) and the king going to war (vv.31-32). The form of the question points to the expected answer for each, “No one, of course” (cf. 11:5, 11; 14:5; 15:4, 17:7). Verse 33 is the conclusion: we must renounce all that keeps us from the fullness of discipleship.
This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C. The gospel is from Luke 14:25-33. Here is the sequence of Sunday gospels in these Sundays of Ordinary Time. After having critiqued host and guests alike at the human banquet of the Pharisee, the Sunday choices for gospels passes over the description and invitation to the heavenly banquet
Luke’s Sunday Year C Reading
14:1-14 Honor and Humility at Table 22nd Sunday 14:15-24 Invitation to the Great Banquet passed over 14:25-33 The Cost of Discipleship 23rd Sunday 15:1-32 Parables of the Lost and Found 24th Sunday
In the gospel passage containing the invitation to the heavenly banquet, Jesus tells a parable about those who take a banquet invitation too lightly and because of their casual attitude lose their own right to a place at the table and are replaced by others. This echoes Jesus’ previous lament over Jerusalem (13:31-35).
We can probably spend the next hour telling humorous and outrageous stories about seating. From seats at school, seats on airplanes, and stories of being seated at wedding receptions with folks that are, …what can I say? “Unique” seems like a good word. We even have stories about seats at church.
Did you know that until the early/mid twentieth century, it was common practice in Anglican, Catholic, and Presbyterian churches to rent pews in churches to families or individuals as a means of raising income? This was especially common in the United States where, unlike Europe, churches lacked governmental financial support. So, churches rented pews to families, which of course enforced a sort of social status in church seating within a parish. It led to all kinds of problems. Should the pew rents simply be renegotiated, should they occasionally be subject to auction, can they be included in the will, bequeathed to the next generation?
Be you host or guest, Alan Culpepper [287-88] offers these final thoughts on the gospel for the upcoming Sunday.
These are liberating words [the gospel] that can free us from the necessity of succeeding in our culture’s contests of power and esteem. They free us from over-under relationships and the attitudes and barriers they create, so that we may be free to create human community and enjoy the security of God’s grace.
This commentary on ancient meal practices and social stratification makes two points. First, one should cultivate and practice humility, if only because it is a prudent means of avoiding embarrassment. The eschatological application at the end of each of the two sections drives home a deeper meaning. Although the practice of humility is proper and prudent for disciples, the kingdom of God will bring about an even more revolutionary reversal. The very standards and practices of discrimination will be overthrown. The outcasts will be accepted as equals. Those who live by kingdom standards and values now will not only bear witness to the kingdom but also will be rewarded in “the resurrection of the righteous” (v. 14). Righteousness, not social position or the esteem of others, should be our goal. God does not look on the glitter of our guest list. Instead, God looks to see that we have practiced the generosity and inclusiveness of the kingdom in our daily social relationships. One standard offers the reward of social position, the other the reward of God’s favor.
The distinctiveness of Jesus’ vision of the kingdom was nowhere clearer than in his protest against discriminatory meal practices. Jesus and the Pharisees ate differently. For Jesus, meals were times of celebration and an inclusive fellowship that foreshadowed the inclusiveness of God’s kingdom. The last supper, therefore, not only pointed ahead to the eschatological banquet, but also it reflected on Jesus’ meals with the disciples, Pharisees, crowds, and outcasts in Galilee. The greatest crisis the early church faced, moreover, was not the delay of the parousia but the burning issue of whom one ate with (see Acts 10:9–16, 28; 15:19–20; Gal 2:11–14). Perhaps it is time we learned new table manners.
Image credit: Jesus at Supper | Caravaggio (1606) | National Gallery London | PD-US
The Japanese could intercept Allied radio traffic, but they lacked the computational resources and personnel to break complex Allied codes like Naval Cypher No. 5. Their cryptanalytic efforts were centralized and bureaucratically fragmented, lacking the scale and success of U.S. or British efforts. As a result Japan remained largely blind to Allied operational planning, especially in the Central Pacific campaigns. In addition, their intelligence analysis and interpretation – especially on a strategic level – was hindered by their rigid military culture and intense rivalry between the Army and Navy. Their military intelligence units operated as though in silos. Intelligence was often ignored or suppressed if it conflicted with existing assumptions or the wishes of senior commanders who operated on biases about the lack of a warrior spirit among allied soldiers and sailors. The senior commanders also underestimated American industrial strength, technological innovation, and the ability to sustain large-scale operations across the Pacific.
The gospel for the upcoming Sunday is taken from the Gospel of Luke describing an encounter with the Pharisees at a banquet. Just as Jesus’ fellow guests had occupied themselves in normal, honor-seeking pursuits upon arrival at the meal, so Jesus’ host had followed ordinary conventions in putting together his invitation list. Invitations served as “currency in the marketplace of prestige and power” [Green, 552] for those whose framework was the world as we know it. Seen through the framework of the Kingdom of God, a different currency is the “gold standard.”
Jesus expands the picture of humility by exhorting his audience to invite to their dinner table the needy and those who cannot repay such kindness. Hospitality should be open to all. This kind of reversal of expectations and status is thematic in Luke (e.g., 1:52; 6:20-26; 18:14). In fact, in the very next passage, our meal story continues with Jesus reemphasizing the notion of inviting the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind (14:21), this time in a parable representing the eschatological banquet of God, which will include just such marginalized ones, with the “invited guest list” being left out (14:24).
friarmusings 