RSSI meant in no way to denigrate and it is true that Japanese soldiers did very well with what they had. General Yamashita’s capture of Singapore, even though outnumbered, stunned the British because the Japanese were able to traverse terrain that the British thought impassable.
The dedication of the average Japanese soldier was close to fanatical. Think about the soldier in the Philippines who was ordered to remain at his post and did so for 27 years. When he was discovered, he refused to believe that the war was over. They eventually had to track down his commanding officer who they flew to the Philippines to tell him that he completed his assignment and could return back to Japan. That’s dedication.
Yet, it’s no good to gloss over issues. At the Battle of Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese often made fruitless assaults against prepared positions, taking tremendous casualties. They often did the same thing at the Battle of Guadalcanal. One can say that once is bad luck, but twice is a pattern. Also, as related in General Tojo’s memoirs, he laments that command and control was a big issue in the Japanese Army with junior officers often ignoring or going against orders from their superiors.
This traits you describe were certainly true of the Japanese soldiers. However, what they had in discipline, tenacity, and fearlessness was held back by a lack of tactical imagination. Japanese infantry tactics pretty much boiled down to “when in doubt, human wave assault”.
This is straight of out of the CultMarx playbook. The Frankfurt School’s most successful and most fraudulent contribution to political discourse was “Our political enemies are not just wrong, they’re mentally defective.” The supposedly “scientifically proven” this in their magnum opus, Studies in Prejudice, a mix of Freudian pseudoscience and questions preselected or discarded in order to obtain a desired result. And your comment fits the template perfectly.
Once you know about this rhetorical technique, you see it everywhere. The terms “racist”, “homophobic”, “xenophobic”, “islamophobic”, “transphobic”, etc. all imply that the people it’s directed at are mentally ill. In other words, “Don’t listen to him, he’s crazy.” This is a perfect way to dismiss an argument without having to engage it. What’s easier? Using facts and logic to dismantle someone’s point, or just say “You’re crazy, I win.” Apparently you prefer the latter.
Adorno, Horkheimer, Lowenthal, Bettelheim, et al (unabashed Marxists all) published this fraud in 1950 and it was immediately embraced by the academic community and, by now, this is the standard method of argumentation by the left, regardless of the topic. Whenever I hear this rhetoric, I immediately know who is really the mentally defective one. Like I said, once you know about it, it’s everywhere.