My parents pointed out all these dead rabbits on the road when I was a kid. I didn’t know that much about the virus, or even how to spell it.

In 1944, Lt. Hiroo Onada, of the Japanese Imperial Army, was sent to the remote Philippine island of Lubang. His mission was to work with a small team of commando forces to destroy the main airfield and then initiate a series of guerrilla attacks on Allied forces holding the island.

Onada’s team was unsuccessful in destroying the main target and retreated inland. There, they regrouped and began to execute on the second part of their mission. They relentlessly attacked the Allies, but also lost men, supplies, and ground with each engagement. After several rounds, Onada and what was left of his group were forced to retreat deep into the uninhabited recesses of Lubang.

Eventually, the team of commandos lost everyone but the lieutenant. He was completely on his own.

Onada began living off the land; he survived on bananas, coconuts, and occasionally beef (when he could get his hands on a cow from one of Lubang’s many villages). Like any good patriot soldier, Onada also continued to fight. He engaged the enemy when he could and avoided capture several times. He wasn’t going to let his buddies die for nothing. He wasn’t going to shame his family by surrendering. He was going to fight until he either died or his superior officer issued new orders.

The problem was that he did this until 1974.

That’s right, 1974 … 30 years after his mission was given. 29 years following the atomic bombs dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 24 years after the last round of leaflets were air dropped around the world to let soldiers know that they could come out of hiding and return to a normal life.

Even when they did find Onada, he did not come out of the jungle easily. It took quite a bit of convincing. Japanese officials had to actually send Onada’s former superior officer to Lubang and order him out of the jungle. This former officer was, at that point, a Tokyo bookkeeper and had been honorably discharged from military service decades earlier.

When he finally returned to his home country in ‘74, Onada was welcomed with open arms. He was seen as a national hero at that point and Onada’s story was well known in Japan. Growing to mythological proportions, the Japanese had likened their lost soldier to Big Foot or the Abominable Snowman.

He went on to live a pretty normal life, got married, traveled, and even bought a cattle ranch (he learned the ins and outs of beef after surviving on village cows for nearly 30 years). In 1996, Onada returned to Lubang for the first time; the place he called home for so long. And, in 2014, Lt. Hiroo Onada of the Japanese Imperial Army passed away peacefully in his native country.

When I first heard of Onada’s story, I was fascinated — for a few reasons: For starters, the time that he spent in the jungle and in isolation is just remarkable. Hollywood could not even produce something that unbelievable; Tom Hanks was only in seclusion for about 4 years in Cast Away. Onada was on the island of Lubang nearly eight times longer — and without Wilson.

This story also captures the essence of the Japanese Imperial Army: death before surrender. The argument could be made that Onada validated dropping atom bombs on Japan (instead of invading the country). The US justified this approach as a more cost effective solution to ending war with Japan, as the alternative was invading a country filled with people like Onada. American military strategists estimated the death toll of an assault on mainland Japan to be catastrophic and in the millions.

Perhaps, though, it’s not enough to simply call it a motif of Japanese ethos and leave it there…

It was first observed in Uruguay in laboratory rabbits in the late 19th century.

Throughout his stay on Lubang, his actions were technically still legal by every war rule or treaty in place.

You see, on the deck of the USS Missouri in 1945, Japan surrendered to the Allied forces but not to the belligerents themselves. Specifically, they did not surrender to Russia.

They have since signed other peace treaties and legislation, but to this day Japan has never surrendered to the USSR or the Russian Federation.

The two states are actually still bickering over what to do with certain territories like the Kuril Islands. Kuril was occupied by Soviet Russia during World War II and their military still controls the island to this day, even though the island was technically Japanese territory before the war.

Like Russia in Kuril, Onada represented Japanese military occupation of Lubang during a time of war, even though the island belongs to the Philippines (an ally of Russia). He could have stayed on Lubang until his death in 2014 and it would still be difficult to convict him of any crime because of Russia’s occupation of Kuril.

Now, this is obviously a stretch argument and one soldier cannot occupy an entire island militarily.

This was likely just a spot that was missed in the Pacific’s legislative clean-up effort, right?

It is spread by direct contact with an affected animal or by being bitten by fleas or mosquitos that have fed on an infected rabbit. The virus does not replicate in these insect hosts, but can be physically carried by an insect’s mouthparts, i.e. from an infected rabbit to another susceptible animal.

The pretexts for World War II…

There are entire sections of libraries dedicated to the reasons for World War II. I highly recommend diving into some of them; fascinating stuff.

To keep this article from becoming a book, though, let’s be brief about the pretexts. We’ll just look at the generally accepted World War II narrative and the reasons for conflict in two theaters (Europe and The Pacific).

How about a Tweet’s length for each?

Generally accepted pretext for war in Europe (in 140 characters or less):

Treaty of Versailles sucks. FRA/GB dicks. Great Dep makes West poor. GER/ITA very poor. Nazis create jobs & say problem was socialists/Jews.

Generally accepted pretext for war in the Pacific (in 140 characters or less):

JAP ends feudal age, leaves island. League of Nations: “Relax”, then sends ships. JAP builds ships. USA freezes JAP assets. JAP bombs Pearl.

It’s the Axis that always got me, though…

The side that Lt. Hiroo Onada fought with for 30 years.

Since I first learned about WWII (probably between watching old war movies with my grandfather and my first world history lessons in elementary school), I could never figure out why Germany, Italy and Japan joined forces.

If Hitler wanted a single Aryan race, then the Japanese would have certainly been next on his list. Not to mention the Italians, he probably despised having to deal with Benito.

The Japanese also were expanding West. At the time, they were occupying China and other neighboring nations. If they wanted to grow their empire, they had no reason to shift back East towards North America (there is this big roadblock called the Pacific Ocean that way).

It’s there though; the reason why the Axis came together.

It’s also the same reason why Hiroo Onada may have actually been onto something.

Just go deep, deep down in the rabbit hole.

Myxomatosis.

We have a collective misconception of war. We limit it to military action or the mobilization of armed forces. For example, Germany invades France and that means the two countries are at war, right?

Well, it’s actually not that simple … It is imperative to understand that wars are not just limited to battlefields.

Wars are actually fought in three stages, or on three fronts: ideologically; diplomatically; and then militarily. These stages phase in (in the order listed above) and phase out in reverse order.

Think of it like any romantic relationship you have had that ultimately ended:

First, you develop feelings for the person.

Then, you go on dates or “court” them.

And finally, after all the boxes have been checked and the terms of the relationship have been worked out, you begin formally dating that person. You even change your Facebook “relationship status”.

However, then, it doesn’t work out. Someone cheats on someone or maybe just stops feeling it — whatever the reason may be — the previously agreed upon relationship ends.

But … there are still post-relationship actions being taken by both sides for quite some time after the formal dating ends. Sometimes you rekindle things and go have drinks with them. Other times, you are picking which coffee shop you will meet at to, “talk”. Either way, there are very diplomatic steps taken to achieve specific results.

Then, after not seeing that person for quite some time and diplomatic communication stops, the feelings end and you move on.

It is estimated by psychologists that this typically lasts two to three times the length of the relationship itself. So if you dated someone for (let’s say) a year, it should take around two to three years for you to truly get over them.

The process of war phasing in and out is incredibly similar.

The ideological war begins.

Before any legislation is enacted or bullets fly … Long after bombs stop dropping and new governments form … There is the mobilization of ideas.

Or, as in the relationship example, “feelings develop”.

Ideological movements are the foundation of all wars, and they are the toughest to break; just like feelings in a romantic relationship. At the same time, it is ideology that serves as the psychological element which allows one person to kill another and feel justified in doing so — Or, why you went on dates and developed feelings for someone you were in a relationship with.

For wars, though, it isn’t types of attraction that draw emotions, but things like religious beliefs – as in The Crusades.

The worst conflict known to man before the 20th century obviously had a lot of contributing factors, but religion is what people rallied around. Spiritual consciousness played the biggest role in how The Crusades began and was most evident when Pope Urban II decreed: “Christians, who took up arms against the Moors, would secure their place in heaven.” He later added that “No matter what sins they committed in doing so, Christian soldiers would be forgiven by God.”

The ideological stage is by no means limited to religion, though; ideological war can take on many other forms.

In the American Civil War, for example, the component driving legislation and military action was mostly socioeconomic. One belligerent supported slave labor and the other did not, but their religious beliefs did not really differ at all. The socioeconomic conflict, however, was at the heart of every reason for the American Civil War, like which position new states would take when entering the union (“slave” or “free”), foreign trade issues, and preservation of the Constitution.

The ideological stages for both of these wars lasted long after the Moors were driven out of Europe and the slaves were freed in the American South.

Ideologies become policies.

Once an ideology becomes popular and people begin buying in, policy is enacted that reflects the warring ideas. After attraction, you “court” and position yourself for a relationship.

Take the Mexican-American War for example.The ideological framework of the US was “Manifest Destiny”. We believed it was our natural and ideological duty to expand from coast to coast. Thus, we annexed territory — through legislation — and took land claimed by Mexico.

Simultaneously, the Republic of Texas believed they won this land as part of their revolution and wanted to be annexed by the United States. The fact that Mexico did not even recognize Texas’ democratic state is policy that demonstrates their colonial ideological perspective.

Policies and legislation stick around longer than the militaristic phase of war but have to end before the ideological stage can complete. Treaties, disarmaments, ethnic cleansing, embargos, and the redrawing of maps are all perfect examples of acts of war that carry on after military conflict subsides.

The belligerents measure their dicks (or tits).

The phase of war that we all know and how they are dated in history books (American Civil War 1861 to 1865, WWII 1939 to 1945, etc.) is the military stage.

Once an ideology has philosophical buy in and is codified in law, the military deploys. It’s easy to get soldiers to shoot at something when they have ethos and law behind them. It is also easy to get them to stop firing at an enemy and go home when they have seen their buddies lying face down in the muck.

This is the final front to go live during war (like dating) and is always the first to end (also like dating).

It is prudent to point out, that military action can continue to resurface multiple times during any given war.

A perfect example of this is the War of 1812. It was not separate from the Revolutionary War, but Britain’s second attempt to impose colonial rule and reap the economic benefits of North America. It was the second military front of the same larger war. Shortly thereafter, though, this larger war ended and Britain lost interest in winning back her old colonies.

Finally, let’s also remember that military engagements never intend to completely wipe out a country, nation or group.

To do so, would be very costly to the conqueror and wouldn’t be prudent to the overall goal of spreading ideology that brought them to war in the first place … How would democracy spread in the Middle East if everyone in the Middle East were dead? It couldn’t.

Divide and conquer is the name of the game; split up your enemy and get them to kill themselves.

Affected rabbits develop skin tumors, and in some cases blindness, followed by fatigue and fever; they usually die within 14 days of contracting the disease.

Now let’s get back to those Axis powers.

It was when I looked deep down in the rabbit hole of World War II (her different stages) that I saw how and why these belligerents came together.

It also completely validates why Mr. Onada’s story is not just a motif or diplomatic gaff, it’s a full-fledged, real-life parable for why the largest conflict in human history never ended.

There is no treatment, other than to ease the suffering of individual rabbits and the treatment of secondary and opportunistic infections.

I started by looking at the military aspect of WWII.

This is simple enough and normally, generalizations are pretty accurate when talking about this stuff.

Japan: Lots of men; Strong navy; Strong air; X-factor = attitude; Weakness = dependent on trade

Germany: Lots of men; Strong navy; Strong air; X-factor = technology; Weakness = two fronts

Italy: Lots of men; Bad navy; Decent air; X-factor = geography; Weakness = generals

Again there are sections of libraries on this stuff, but generalizations are normally fair when talking military. However you summarize it, Japan’s alliance with the Axis just doesn’t make sense when looking at the military stage in a vacuum.

Japan is half a world away from the other Axis powers, and they really didn’t need anything from Germany or Italy (nor was there a reasonable way for them to even get assistance if they did need it).

The only commonality between the two theaters are the Allied belligerents fighting in the Pacific: USA, AUS, UK & FRA (the last two, only sometimes and always reluctantly). The Axis powers, though, had no need to wage war together and for the most part, they didn’t.

There was nothing militarily that perpetuated their alliance.

In practice, owners of pet rabbits are urged to euthanize the animal to end its suffering. Hunters would specifically target sick rabbits to put them out of their misery.

Then I moved to the political stage of war; maybe something there caused the partnerships to be forged.

Not really.

In Europe (RT above), you have a war that has spawned from the financial institutions of countries victorious in World War I: the Allies. Great Britain, France and the United States completely controlled the European political and economic landscape immediately following WWI.

And “controlled” is not thrown around loosely here … They redrew the whole map:

Weird, right?

If the goal was to create “freedom”, then this redraw doesn’t make a lot of sense. If the goal was divide and conquer, then this seems to make perfect sense.

Take, for example, that whole Baltic Sea mess.

Poland, which has almost all of their industry tied up in British, French or Swiss banks, is magically granted a strip of land through former Germany giving them a port they’ve never had before. The Lithuanian people (Russian on paper but sort of a German bunch that are – oddly – almost always nice) are told they now have their own state to manage. Before the ink was dry Western banks were giving loans to Lithuanian owned business along the Baltic. Manufacturers and shipping companies came pouring in shortly after. Latvia and Estonia were no different, but these people had no ties to the German people. These long-time socialists are given the reins to a new state, equipped with some starter money (federally insured by the NCUA) and told, “Go”.

Not to mention, all those states that were created out of nowhere in Central Europe…

Still, this is no reason for Japan to get involved. Why would they care if Central Europeans were hungry? If anything, that would help them in their drive Westward.

At the same time, the political actions that did involve Japan (discussed in “Part III: So … What Happens Next”) had little to no effect on Europe. If anything, aligning with a country like Japan, that was dependent on foreign trade for several of its key resources, would be detrimental to Germany and Italy’s war effort.

By 1955, about 95% of rabbits in the UK and France were dead. Over 50% of the Australian population was decimated.

For the Axis alliance in World War II to make sense, it has to be ideology that brought them together.

However, when I looked at where these nations fell on the ideological spectrum both then and now, I made a shocking revelation.

Below are two charts showing where most political theorists would agree the belligerent countries fall on a left-right political spectrum (both during WWII and now).

During: Today:

See what has happened?

The winners of the militaristic and political stages of war are losing the ideological war. They are moving towards the same positions on the ideological spectrum that the Axis powers held during WWII. The former Axis have since displaced to where the Allies sat during the War.

What the ideology shows is that this was not a war of good against evil, as much as we want it to be.

[The holocaust was evil and this makes it especially difficult to separate the idea of good against evil and grasp this concept, but you have to remember: We didn’t even know the full extent of the holocaust until the spring of 1945 when the war was pretty much over]

The war is between two opposing ideological views, but sadly, the belligerents must be viewed as two forces that were on the same side of the coin. Ideologically, Germany, Italy, Japan, France, the UK and the United States were all moving towards or already on the same side of the ideological spectrum.

It is ideological civil war that is still around and the right side of the political spectrum is winning. The side that once housed the Axis powers and the one we call “evil”.

This is the only way to explain why the Axis joined forces.

They saw that through: the Treaty of Versailles, the economic domination by the Allies and socialism, there was a threat to their existence. They only joined forces so they wouldn’t be pinched out of the world scene.

However, if it is the driving factor behind the diplomatic formation of the Axis forces and the victors of the military and political wars are moving in that direction, then this also means that the ideological war has not ended…

The Allies have traded places with the losers of the military war and have fought them ever since. Every major war since WWII has been openly driven by ideology, whether it be against socialism or (the latest one) terrorism.

Our goal has been to democratize the enemy or align them with our way of life.

Now, I can’t stop thinking about one of the Axis powers that tried something similar…

As for Onada? It seems that he may have been on the losing end of the military stage of WWII. But in the larger war, the ideological war, his side is winning.

His allies have also flip-flopped (originally it was Germany and Italy, now the US and UK), but even today, he could legally and justifiably be in that jungle fighting the socialists.

The exact same enemy he went to fight back in 1944.

Lt. Hiroo Onada really was on to something, wasn’t he?

It was introduced into Australia, France and the UK in 1950 in an attempt to control the rabbit population.