Remembering Japan's kamikaze pilots

The Nuremberg Defence? It didn’t hold water at Nuremberg and it shouldn’t have been allowed to hold water at the IMTFE in Tokyo.

The point, surely, is not how the Kamikaze attacked but who they attacked.

The difference between those employing the ‘Nuremberg defence’ and the Kamikaze is that the Kamikaze legitimately attacked combatants actively engaged in military operations; in that they have no need to defend their actions (even if that was possible).

But going back to the original article, do those surviving letters deserve World Heritage status? Whilst no doubt historically important, are they any more deserving of such an elevated status than a letter from a victim of Dachau or Treblinka? Or of a German soldier killed on the Eastern Front or from a New Zealander who will remain forever in the Italian hills? Personally, I think not.

How about equally as deserving, then?

Not just aircraft but another desperate act which was virtually useless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinyo-class_suicide_motorboat

They were fighting for a cause they believed or were told to believe.They cannot be blamed for their commanding ranks decisions.Don’t forget they were also defending their own country in the end.

The Nuremberg Defence? It didn’t hold water at Nuremberg and it shouldn’t have been allowed to hold water at the IMTFE in Tokyo. Have a browse through the Judgment of the IMTFE Gary, you might find it interesting. As for defending their Country it should be remembered that the only reason they NEEDED to defend their Country was because Japan had decided to enter a war of aggression and conquest. It was Japan which attacked China and it was Japan which invaded Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaya, the Phillipines etc., etc. But before we go any further, how effective was the concept of Kamikaze and how did it come about?

Firstly, the difference between Kamikaze and Jibaku needs to be briefly examined. The first suicide attacks were not planned and happened spontaneously, these were the Jibaku attacks. In these cases it was the decision of an individual pilot to crash into enemy targets as a result of their aircraft being so severely damaged that it was impossible to return to their land base or carrier. Desperation? Heroism? Allied pilots have done the same. It is perhaps an understandable desire to gain something positive from an impossible situation. This is where the difference between such Jibaku attacks and the subsequent Kamikaze attacks arises. The formation of the Tokkotai or ‘special attack’ units was a command decision which was being discussed by the High Command as early as Autumn 1943. Captain Jo Eiichiro urged Vice Admiral Onishi “No longer can we hope to sinkt the numerically superior enemy aircraft carriers by conventional attack. I urge the immediate organisation of special attack units to carry out crash-dive (tai-atari) tactics.” Onishi told the chief of the Naval General Staff in October 1944 that “Appealing to the high integrity of front-line warriors in terms of martyrdom and self-sacrifice, we have to dare to conduct attacks using aircraft.”

And so the concept of Kamikaze was brought to fruition. But was it effective? A brief analysis of ships sunk versus pilots lost would suggest that it was anything but effective. It is generally accepted that between 50 and 60 Allied vessels were sunk or damaged so severely that they were deemed beyond repair. These were the successes of the Kamikaze and do not include vessels lost to Jibaku attacks. On the debit side for the Japanese, the Army Air Force lost 708 NCO pilots and 621 Officer pilots in Kamikaze attacks whilst the Imperial Japanese Navy lost 1732 Petty Officer pilots and 782 Officer pilots, a total of 3,843. The effectiveness (or otherwise) of the Kamikaze attacks is apparent both mathematically and historically. No amount of Kamikaze attacks would (or could) have prevented the Allies closing the Home Islands to carry out an invasion which would have been disastrously costly to both the Allies and Japanese alike.

But going back to the original article, do those surviving letters deserve World Heritage status? Whilst no doubt historically important, are they any more deserving of such an elevated status than a letter from a victim of Dachau or Treblinka? Or of a German soldier killed on the Eastern Front or from a New Zealander who will remain forever in the Italian hills? Personally, I think not.

Regards,

kev35

So what were those natty black and white stripes for on the Spitfires and Mustangs and so on?

To identify aircraft that were liberating the peoples of countries invaded by fascist dictatorships.

Lobster

…Allied pilots did not take part in invading other countries…

So what were those natty black and white stripes for on the Spitfires and Mustangs and so on?

They were fighting for a cause they believed or were told to believe.They cannot be blamed for their commanding ranks decisions.Don’t forget they were also defending their own country in the end.
Brave young souls,knowing they weren’t coming back,it could be argued the allies always had a belief they could get back,whether it be better planes,more back up,parachutes and survival gear – oh and not plunging into a target.

… no different from allied pilots. …

Excepting that Allied pilots did not take part in invading other countries with the consequential casualties. That is a very important difference when assessing the moral imperative.

Regards

I’ve never really understood why Kamikaze pilots were so demonised.
They wore their national colours and fought against an enemy, no different from allied pilots. Except they were prepared to die for their cause.
Takes a certain kindof courage to leave on a mission knowing you will not return.
I’m not defending what they did. Just trying to understand what they did amongst all the other horrors of war.