Spoils of War or War loot?

[Hector]

On 8/6/2026 at 11:41 PM, Hokke said:

What makes this discussion interesting for me is perspective. American troops, for example, will generally agree with the idea of “spoils of war”. 

 

Let's not forget the Russians, shall we? They become veritable locusts when set loose in conquered lands. Just ask Baroness Von Richthofen what happened to all son Manfred's medals and souvenirs at the close of WWII. There was no great wringing of hands in Moscow as to whether they should be returned along with the Richthofen family silver or Hitler's dental work, as I recall.

 

And, as for Ukraine! Well, anything's fair game over there, it would appear.

Cellphones, TVs, cars, freezers, food, microwaves, watches, chickens (whether for food or pleasure is uncertain), etc, etc, ad infinitum.

And none of that indiscriminate booty is ever going back to its rightful owners.

[John C]

8 hours ago, Hector said:

Cellphones, TVs, cars, freezers, food, microwaves, watches, chickens

Putin just signed an executive order allowing the seizure of houses under the auspices of being "ownerless". 14,000 so far in the Russian controlled area.

 

John C.

[Hokke]

14 hours ago, Hector said:

...none of that indiscriminate booty is ever going back to its rightful owners.

 

Leave the chickens out of this

[reinhard]

It's quite simple.

 

Officer's swords were of no importance as weapons during WW II and most of their blades were poorly made.

Their value consists only in their emanation of a militarism gone mad.

The war was fought with rifles, machine-guns, tanks, airplanes, battle-ships.....and so on.

Therefore it was reasonable to confiscate these Gun-To, separating the so-called "ancestral blades" before and destroying the rest.

 

The other side of the "winner takes it all"-attitude is:

Important swords with no connection to the actions of the Japanese Imperial Army at all were stolen from temples by marauding GIs looking for souvenirs.

Important swords handed over to allied forces by major Japanese families or even by the Tenno himself just disappeared after the war.

This was just a primitive theft of cultural property and these spoils should be returned to their former owners.

Some smart-asses in the Nihonto-market see these matters differently, of course.

Time will judge.

 

reinhard

 

[Hector]

56 minutes ago, reinhard said:

This was just a primitive theft of cultural property and these spoils should be returned to their former owners.

 

War renders all its participants 'primitive'. 
Some men behave like men but many more toss aside the veil of civilization completely and indulge their basest natures. 
It's simply the nature of the beast. (Pun intended.)

 

I don't believe that the theft of Manfred Von Richthofen's medals, decorations and trophies by the Russians in 1945 is any less a theft of cultural property than the looting and confiscation of Japanese swords - including those belonging to Emperor Hirohito (a man who should, by rights, have joined Tojo on the gallows).

 

Regardless, very few - if any - of these pieces will ever make it back to their original owners - and perhaps that's exactly the way it should be. The more the rich and powerful lose personally (not just the poor young plebs dying in the front lines), the less they'll feel inclined to start another war.

Edited Sunday at 01:02 AM by Hector
Syntax

[Rivkin]

Why someone's right to anything should be based solely on the fact that his distant ancestor somehow managed to acquire it? Few would argue for restoration of XVIth century fiefs.

 One of the good things about War, it asks everyone what are they ready to die for. And if you are not ready to die for something - maybe its not in your heart, not in your mind, and should not be in your future, no matter what your great-grand-grand-father thought about it. And in the same manner, the great sacrifice and aspiration... In the very least they give you a right to experience things you never even dreamed about.

.
Would 100% of historic Japanese swords remaining in Japan enrich the Japanese culture? I doubt it. A Japanese dealer who needs to fight to buy such blade is not only brings honor to his name, but also develops kantei and other skills which would not appear if the blade was just "inherited" goods stashed in a warehouse.

 

I toast to War, Gentlemen. And to a stash of out of polish blades in my suitcase which I will need to kantei within next month.

[reinhard]

"Regardless, very few - if any - of these pieces will ever make it back to their original owners - and perhaps that's exactly the way it should be. The more the rich and powerful lose personally, the less they'll feel inclined to start another war." (Hector)

 

You missed the main point.

Stealing the cultural heritage of a community grown over a very long time won't change a thing for good in the future

It's just theft.

 

"...Emperor Hirohito (a man who should, by rights, have joined Tojo on the gallows." (Hector)

 

What rights? To my senses president Truman was class-A war criminal.

 

reinhard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hector]

10 hours ago, reinhard said:

"Regardless, very few - if any - of these pieces will ever make it back to their original owners - and perhaps that's exactly the way it should be. The more the rich and powerful lose personally, the less they'll feel inclined to start another war." (Hector)

 

You missed the main point.

Stealing the cultural heritage of a community grown over a very long time won't change a thing for good in the future

It's just theft.

 

"...Emperor Hirohito (a man who should, by rights, have joined Tojo on the gallows." (Hector)

 

What rights? To my senses president Truman was class-A war criminal.

 

reinhard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually agree with you on all of your major points , Reinhard - everything else is just semantics.

 

I've never said that I believe anything good would come out of stealing a nation's cultural heritage - only that is a byproduct of war.

My comment about the rich suffering along with the poor was just flippant wishful thinking - the rich never suffer along with the poor; they always have more contingency plans than Blofeld in a Bond movie.

 

As regards Truman; yes, I also believe he was a war criminal because his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was at least partially based on his innate personal racism and sense of white supremacism.

 

To quote directly from Truman himself:

"One man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman…. the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, and then threw what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I."

(From a June 22, 1911, letter written by Harry S. Truman to his future wife, Bess Wallace.)

 

That unsavory fact, however, does not make Hirohito any more innocent. Although fully cognisant of the many crimes committed in his name during the 1930s and 40s, he was protected after World War II by Douglas MacArthur (who deemed himself 'The White Shogun'). He knew - as did the Ashikaga, Tokugawa and Choshu clans before him - that you need the emperor as a pawn if you're going to control the country and make the Japanese people compliant to your will.

 

Conversely, MacArthur used the war crimes trials to settle personal scores and hang blameless generals like Yamashita and Honma whose only 'crimes' were the utter humiliation of MacArthur in the Philippines and of Great Britain in Singapore.

Edited Monday at 09:11 AM by Hector
Additional comment.

[Nukitsuke]

On 8/8/2026 at 12:07 AM, John C said:

Mitchell:

If you're interested in manga or graphic novels, there is an excellent book series called Showa written and illustrated by Shigeru Mizuki. It is a thick 4 volume set where he goes into great detail about his experiences.  The first volume is on how Japan made it through the Depression and the resulting political and domestic decision making that led to Expansion and militarism, particularly as it relates to China. The other 3 cover the years he went to war, the US occupation, and finally the rest of the showa era to 1989. It's written in English, however it reads right to left like a Japanese book. He is an amazing artist so a long, but enjoyable read.

 

John C.

John,

Thank you so much for sharing, I just picked up the first volume! 

 

- Mitchell

[Hokke]

15 hours ago, reinhard said:

You missed the main point.

Stealing the cultural heritage of a community grown over a very long time won't change a thing for good in the future

It's just theft.

 

What you say is true, however, the blame for the "theft" is shared by the Japanese. 

 

If I decide to create a suit where cover it completely with loosely attached with gold bars and choose to walk though an area known for crime, who is to blame if I am assaulted and robbed? 

 

Your example is one those ideas that only works in a "perfect" world but not in the reality of human nature. Of course in a perfect world, there would be no war in the first place..........

[John C]

2 hours ago, Hokke said:

who is to blame if I am assaulted and robbed

The criminal, of course. Victim blaming was a defense strategy popular up until the 1980's. The most prominent example is blaming a woman who gets sexually assaulted because she wore "provocative" clothing. A similar concept is Victim Precipitation, whereby "the victim started it." These are some of the global attitudes that prevent societies from ever solving the crime problem. We blame the victim, address the crime itself through incarceration or fines, however we never address the underlying causes that create criminal attitudes (or as we call it, attitudes favorable toward law violation). 

 

3 hours ago, Hokke said:

those ideas that only works in a "perfect" world

I usually do not give a personal opinion, however I'll chime in with my view. I don't think we should give up on tryng to make a better society by suggesting that a world without crime cannot exist. It can. But it certainly would not be easy. It would take some real political will to buck the established norms and actually change the attitudes of people in a society. Sociologists, Economists, and Criminologists have had the anwers for a very long time. The problem is that answers contradict established political rhetoric that wins votes. Example: "I'm going to be tough on crime" rhetoric. And the action is always the same: stiffer sentences for certain street crimes and the establishment of laws that have little to no effect on actual crime rates. We NEVER hear a politician say he or she is going to solve the crime problem by creating jobs and increasing educational opportunities for folks getting out of prison, the two most impactful preventative measures for recidivism. 

Let's start changing the attitudes of folks who believe they have the right to take from others and hurt others to further their personal goals. It doesn't start at the jailhouse door. It starts with what parents are teaching their children. (I said it wouldn't be easy)

 

John C.

[Bruce Pennington]

24 minutes ago, John C said:

what parents are teaching their children.

And THAT is the crucial point.  Fatherless homes, and a culture that helps produce them, are key.  Changing that culture would greatly reduce crime.  But like you pointed out, what a hard task for a government to face.  Education and social skills training for prisoners are good, but they are like modern medicine treating the symptom but not the cause.

[John John]

I may be off target with my thoughts on this, but the Japanese are not interested in any of the mass-produced blades of ww2. However, I am of the belief that a family blade is something of great respect and should only be in the hands of the opposing side if it was purchased or gifted by the family. There is such a thing as theft, and admiring a work of art on your wall that doesn't belong is a crime.

[John C]

1 hour ago, Bruce Pennington said:

the cause

Specifically, those two things positively impact (treat) recidivism. So it is a three-fold process: getting parents to teach non-criminal values to their children, helping the ones who fell through the cracks (jobs and education); and keeping space for true sociopaths to remain in prison. That last bit seems contrary, however we must acknowledge that there are those folks, whether born or developed, who do not have the capacity or desire to "work and play well with others."

 

John C.

[Hokke]

4 hours ago, John C said:

The criminal, of course. Victim blaming was a defense strategy popular up until the 1980's. The most prominent example is blaming a woman who gets sexually assaulted because she wore "provocative" clothing. A similar concept is Victim Precipitation, whereby "the victim started it." These are some of the global attitudes that prevent societies from ever solving the crime problem. We blame the victim, address the crime itself through incarceration or fines, however we never address the underlying causes that create criminal attitudes (or as we call it, attitudes favorable toward law violation). 

 

I usually do not give a personal opinion, however I'll chime in with my view. I don't think we should give up on tryng to make a better society by suggesting that a world without crime cannot exist. It can. But it certainly would not be easy. It would take some real political will to buck the established norms and actually change the attitudes of people in a society. Sociologists, Economists, and Criminologists have had the anwers for a very long time. The problem is that answers contradict established political rhetoric that wins votes. Example: "I'm going to be tough on crime" rhetoric. And the action is always the same: stiffer sentences for certain street crimes and the establishment of laws that have little to no effect on actual crime rates. We NEVER hear a politician say he or she is going to solve the crime problem by creating jobs and increasing educational opportunities for folks getting out of prison, the two most impactful preventative measures for recidivism. 

Let's start changing the attitudes of folks who believe they have the right to take from others and hurt others to further their personal goals. It doesn't start at the jailhouse door. It starts with what parents are teaching their children. (I said it wouldn't be easy)

 

John C.

Shared responsibility is NOT victim blaming, it's realistic. Funny how those who cry victim blaming fail to acknowledge that no one is saying the person who committed the crime should be held accountable in full. Two things CAN be right simultaneously. You can be a scumbag who commits a crime AND a citizen can be innocent and still be responsible for a poor decision. The difference is in the consequences.

 

I agree with the importance of parents teaching their children.......we are all responsible for the choices we make. 

 

As for politicians needing to "creating jobs and increasing educational opportunities for folks getting out of prison".....what exactly does that look like to you, im curious? Lets start with educational opportunities, its a nice couple of words, but apply it in reality. Is it funding? Is that funding greater, equal to or less than that allotted for those applying for the same funding who HAVEN'T committed a crime(s)? How about creating jobs....what jobs would those be exactly that wouldn't be taking employment away from those who HAVEN'T commented a crime? In reality does John Q. Tax Payer want to have tax money going to educate criminals? Can adult aged criminals even be turned in a meaningful percentage? More realistically though, does a politician want to be known as the person who directs tax money to criminals? Seeing the world with rose colored glasses.......

 

Whats needed, that is practical, is a new strategy of educating parents BEFORE the become parents. Giving couple the best shot at raising children to walk the right path. Garbage parents will almost always raise garbage children, period. This isnt the worst part though is it? The worst part is mediocre parent raising mediocre kids who make REAL mistakes based on poor choices that otherwise land a decent kid in the justice system where corruption is reinforced. 

 

The last problem.....greed. There are things that politicians can do right now in the broken system we have to discourage recidivism and also save tax payer money, but you won't see them happen, why? Because the prison system is a BUSINESS and business is good. 

 

Throwing money at the problem will not solve it. Identifying and acknowledging the root of the problem is a must and that problem is PARENTING, or rather the lack of it. It has only gotten worse in the last 20 years with the rise of tech and devices that parents are making the CHOICE to allow to raise their kids. Why do parents allow devices to raise their kids? Greed......they want the time to themselves because parenting is HARD WORK if you are doing it properly and this the USA, a country no longer known for "hard work". 

 

It is what it is......we reap what we sow

[Rivkin]

Gentlemen, if you take Russian Special Forces course, and the same goes for the Ukrainian one which is pretty similar...

There is an interview close to the end. An officer tells you that your group operates deep behind the enemy lines from a hideout in a forest. One day a grandma and her kid walk right into it. Or they walk right into you on the way back from a mission. What to do? To finish the course you must say you'll kill them. An officer will ask how. He will ask how you strangle a ten year old girl. Chances are the first time you describe it, you miss couple of technical details.

 

The purpose is not only to make sure you'll do that, but also bring a sense that whatever you do, you are responsible for many people who are not part of your team.

If you don't want to kill random people, its not enough to feel proud about such stance. It also means putting a lot of effort.

Nevertheless, some of the most heroic people are actually those that drop out of class because they refuse to say they'll strangle the girl. One well known guy, Dadin, was apparently like that, and he died after accomplishing numerous heroics in literally a month.

 

So if a warrior steals a porcelain vase we have a problem. If he "steals" a sword or gun... I can't quite call it stealing. The enemy's weapon belongs to you. If its 800 years old, well, seal it inside salt mines if you don't want it to be taken.

 

The only issue is when some countries like USSR do not have open antiques market and are not very transparent/ a bit guilty about the stolen stuff. So instead of brining Klimt to antique store and selling it a soldier does something inventive and the object gets destroyed. If there is no guilt involved - there are not that many good swords left in the US, certainly compared to Japan. Free market adjusts for people's desires and collectibles end up with people who respect and love them. As it should be. And if these are not the people who would have inherited these swords before the war... Maybe the war did a good thing shaking up the society.

Edited Monday at 11:41 PM by Rivkin

[John C]

50 minutes ago, Hokke said:

Shared responsibility is NOT victim blaming, it's realistic.

I'll address these quickly.

You asked "who is to blame." The criminal, by definition, is to blame for commiting a crime. The victim does not commit the crime. Period. We would need different definitions for these if the criminal and victim were one and the same. The other parts of your response refer to having a defensive posture and taking responsibility to ensure you are safe from criminals. That's a separate issue. I'm giving you the theory behind the concepts of criminalization and victimization. 

57 minutes ago, Hokke said:

what exactly does that look like to you,

There is one simple measure that some states have already passed, as an example. It's called "Ban the Box." I talk a little about it in one of my books. The measure refers to the question on many job applications about "have you ever been convicted of a felony." The second part of the measure has to do with criminal background checks. If the applicant answers honestly, they can't even get hired at Wally world. If they lie but a background check shows a record, they can't get a job. You may be surprised how few jobs are available to those who have been convicted of a crime. As I stated earler, employment is one of the best methods to reduce recidivism. Why is that? Because most criminals are not violent, street thugs. Most have made a mistake or were forced by circumstances to commit a crime. Not bad people, just bad choices. Obviously, this does not apply to everyone but it is a step in the right direction. Heck, even the president couldn't get a job at Wally world because he is a convicted felon.

Another avenue is skill development while in prison - welding, plumbing, carpentry, and other trades can be taught. Self-employment does not require a background check (in most cases).

1 hour ago, Hokke said:

Whats needed, that is practical, is a new strategy of educating parents BEFORE the become parents. Giving couple the best shot at raising children to walk the right path. Garbage parents will almost always raise garbage children, period. This isnt the worst part though is it? The worst part is mediocre parent raising mediocre kids who make REAL mistakes based on poor choices that otherwise land a decent kid in the justice system where corruption is reinforced. 

 

The last problem.....greed. There are things that politicians can do right now in the broken system we have to discourage recidivism and also save tax payer money, but you won't see them happen, why? Because the prison system is a BUSINESS and business is good. 

No argument about these two points. It all starts with the parents. Offering adult education where the pitfalls of raising kids poorly is taught. "Troubled kids" become delinquents, delinquents become criminals if there is no intervention. The number one cause of delinquency? (drum roll...) - The lack of effective parental supervision. Creating more workplace childcare for adults who work two or three jobs and can't "effectively supervise" their children will reduce delinquency rates.

 

Greed: What can you say. A good resource for this is a book called "The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Prison."

1 hour ago, Hokke said:

Throwing money at the problem will not solve it

I can't argue too much with this last one either, other than to say "money fixes all evils" meaning if you throw enough money in the RIGHT DIRECTION, you can solve a whole bunch of problems. The biggest hurdle of any program is funding. Give me Elon's bank account number and you would be amazed at what I could do with it. I gaurantee there wouldn't be one single hungry child or homeless person in this country.

 

John C. 

[Bazza]

10 hours ago, Hokke said:

 

What you say is true, however, the blame for the "theft" is shared by the Japanese. 

 

If I decide to create a suit where cover it completely with loosely attached with gold bars and choose to walk though an area known for crime, who is to blame if I am assaulted and robbed? 

 

Your example is one those ideas that only works in a "perfect" world but not in the reality of human nature. Of course in a perfect world, there would be no war in the first place..........

Some while ago I was chatting with a friend who owns a tanto and is married to a Japanese lady.  Talking on this subject he succinctly said "Start a war, lose your culture".  There is a much of it in the history of war.

 

BaZZa.

[Hokke]

1 hour ago, John C said:

You asked "who is to blame." The criminal, by definition, is to blame for commiting a crime. The victim does not commit the crime. Period. We would need different definitions for these if the criminal and victim were one and the same. 

From the perspective of law, you are correct, however for the perspective of pure responsibility, both parties share, albeit in different ways. 

 

There is one simple measure that some states have already passed, as an example. It's called "Ban the Box." I talk a little about it in one of my books. The measure refers to the question on many job applications about "have you ever been convicted of a felony." The second part of the measure has to do with criminal background checks. If the applicant answers honestly, they can't even get hired at Wally world. If they lie but a background check shows a record, they can't get a job. You may be surprised how few jobs are available to those who have been convicted of a crime.

Well, banning the "box" is an interesting concept but has little value overall. As a hiring business, you either do background checks or you dont. If you do them, it's easy to justify the "box" as a measure of honesty. I don't see it serving a negative purpose. Remember, the problem isn't that business aren't willing to hire someone with a petty or small criminal history, the issue is that most jobs receive a lot of applicants and if an employer has the choice between someone with or without a criminal record, 9 times out of ten they will go with the clean record applicant. This only illustrates the importance of teaching choices to young people. When someone chooses to commit a crime they are also choosing to check that "box" for the rest of their lives. 

 

Most have made a mistake or were forced by circumstances to commit a crime. Not bad people, just bad choices. 

Cant have it both ways there, bad choice is a bad choice, there is no "force". A mother or father broke and unable to feed their children are not "forced" to steal. They make the choice to steal and by making that choice accept ALL the potential consequences. 

 

Another avenue is skill development while in prison - welding, plumbing, carpentry, and other trades can be taught.

Yes, it's an important idea, but unrealistic. So we are back to showing how this will look in reality. The only way to offer these trade courses is to dump a HUGE amount of money in a system that tax payers have no interest in, for a couple of reasons. But im curious if you see it differently. How do you offer no cost trade classes to those who have committed crimes and not offer the same free courses to those who haven't committed a crime? But let's say you do it but offering these courses to EVERYONE, regardless of their criminal record. Now you have a huge influx of potential hires on the market.......who will get the job when employers do their background checks? 

 

Creating more workplace childcare for adults who work two or three jobs and can't "effectively supervise" their children will reduce delinquency rates.

Ok, and what level or quality childcare do you think the average "workplace " will provide for its employees, and even further still, what ages? Do you see it realistic for workplaces to offer childcare for teens? By the way, who exactly is going to pay for the workplace childcare. Will all staff need to pay or just the staff with the children? If only parents have to pay, you encourage companies to hire only those without children.....that's bad. Well then the cost is applied to ALL employees right, regardless if they have children or require the childcare. How do you see that going over with people who already lament at the deductions they see on every pay stub?

 

The biggest hurdle of any program is funding. Give me Elon's bank account number and you would be amazed at what I could do with it. I gaurantee there wouldn't be one single hungry child or homeless person in this country.

Nope, not a snowballs chance in hell.  Even with an unlimited budget, you will never eradicate hungry children or the homeless. You can only achieve this with MONEY and if money is in play, there will ALWAYS be parents who will happily sacrifice their children happiness to keep more of it for themselves.

 

 

[Hokke]

7 hours ago, Bruce Pennington said:

And THAT is the crucial point.  Fatherless homes, and a culture that helps produce them, are key.  Changing that culture would greatly reduce crime.  

The specific gender raising a child is unimportant....whats important is COMPETENCE. There are plenty of "fathers" and mothers for that matter, who have no business acting in the roll of caregiver. It is not a gender thing, period. I'll bet you say that because "when you were a kid" you feared getting the belt from your daddy and it taught you to be respectful and truthful and mind good manners. Fact of the matter is that if a child requires the belt or a switch or any kind of physical consequence, you have already shown a level of incompetence. 

[Scogg]

Let’s stay on topic guys

[EricMajo]

Stepping back a bit: looting and war spoils have existed throughout history — they even helped fund armies and campaigns long before WWII. Whatever label we put on it, one thing worth noting on the positive side: these swords ended up scattered far beyond where they'd otherwise have stayed, and that dispersal is exactly what let collectors across the world develop a real passion for nihonto and build collections over the past several decades. That's brought genuine value to the study and appreciation of samurai culture, and to the market that sustains it. There's good and bad to draw from almost any historical event — just a matter of perspective.

[Tetsu]

Is "loot" vs. "spoils" a matter of the possessions of combatants vs. non-combatants (aka. civilians)?  If so, then what really is a non-combatant? 

 

A man in a military uniform and a gun in his hand is obviously a combatant, the gun (or sword) he drops on the battlefield is a "spoil," and most would not dispute the definition in this case.  Meanwhile, most would agree that a soldier roving the countryside and breaking into random homes and stealing possessions would be "loot."

 

But what about Japanese companies (and their civilian owners and workers) such as Mitsubishi, which directly prospered as a result of WW II, are they non-combatants?  In other words, what's the difference between the guy who builds the bomb, and the guy who drops it?  If we drained the bank accounts of Mitsubishi after the war (all post-war rebuilding policy aside), is this not a "spoil?"  The answer might seem simple to an expert in wartime law, but to me the definition of non-combatant is not so simple as black and white.