I know a number of people here have a somewhat morbid fascination with the whole kamikaze ethos.... having read this article I have to say it was interesting as well as thought provoking!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1720082,00.html

Great find Ozzy.

I for one never understood what all the fuss was about.

  For further reading check out a new book titled "Blossoms in the Wind" by M.G. Sheftall.  I've been picking through it and found the the flight trainning for the Ohka flying bomb interesting.

Great read. 8) Enjoyed it.

  Is the book "Thunder Gods" still available.  If so where can I get a copy.

Quote:

I think it's fair to say this is the rule - not the exception - for most soldiers in World War II.  I'm not sure I'd say honor though.  Kind of a propagandist notion if you ask me.

It is honour when somebody dies for something he believes as a high value. It is the self sacrifice for no personal profit which lifts a human being higher than the fear of death. It has nothing to do with politics, it doesn't matter if we are talking about a WWII German, Japanese, British, American or any other nationality and alliance side soldier. They all had the chance to be heros, they all had the chance to be animals. Some did the first, some did the second and some did both.

If you ask about the war today... I cannot see anything but government games. On the other hand, maybe it was always the same. A simple person however, in the battle, goes beyond these "games".

I would like to add that as in chess a soldier is the less valued piece a real war soldier is the same. He can only kill and die. Killing is a duty. Been killed is the same. What is a good enough reward for this? Think a bit about this.

Imagine that enemy soldier living peacefully in a house and then one day he is forced to get a gun, leave everything behind and go to the battle with a huge possibility to be killed. He has to kill as well no matter if he wants it or not. Also, imagine those people he has left behind and they are waiting for him just hoping. Imagine all these and how inhuman is for each of us to kill that person. It seems already bad but is not the end.

Now, imagine that your own life (not only the life of that enemy soldier) means nothing to the government you have elected, you have paid taxes to, you have trusted. You are asked not to respect your own life and die for some "values" as if the human life is not an important value. Imagine all your loved ones when they will hear the news of your death. Gather all these together and consider yourself marching to the battle, to kill and die.

Am I wrong saying that anyone under these circumstances is a real hero?

Consider how important is a human life and think of the millions of lost lives during WWII. It is said that a death is tragedy but a million deaths is statistics.

Returning back to those government "games", consider how coward you would be if you had a quarel with someone and you commanded other people to quarel with your opponenent's people while you and your opponent just wait to see who will win just to talk about "victory".

Most of this post's readers will say I am a dreamer and they will be right but in any case what is a chess-soldier's best power than dreaming of reaching the other board's side without been killed?

Please accept my apologise for the extended post.

Quote:

I just don't understand how death is honourable.  Whether it was the Battle of Thermopylae or the Battle for Pyongyang.  I very much doubt any veteran is honestly proud about how many other men he's killed.  Even in this very article Mr. Hamazono says, "Mother ... that's the only word. You have only seconds left."  I believe these men fought for their families, their country and their life and went through unspeakable horrors to do so, a great many unwillingly as well.  For that they deserve our respect.  As such I would never include honour and veteran in the same sentence.  I imagine many of these men (and women) try to forget those days.  Why would you try to forget honour?

It's only honourable after it's been romanticized.

  Remember this, a war is not won by dying for your country, no matter how horourable.  A war is won by making the other guy die for his country.

It is hard to discuss these things without being too political and trying not to bring in the real world in to this place. The history forum isn't supposed to be a cover name for a Politics forum.

I believe prevention is better than cure. I think there are so many examples of history that show this to be true. The UN is a very good system, although far from perfect, and the IAEA keeps a close check on countries. To take a currenct situation in the news at present, note how countries are not waiting. If only this was done in the second world war.

I can't answer the question really and, because I have already put my self forward for a slap, I can't do anything more than lay hold of my tongue.

Quote:


I agree, that why I posted the original statement about keeping our discussion limited to history.  Then you posted your opinions about current events.

Quote:


The UN is ineffictive in preventing conflict.  Historically, the only thing the UN has done was to provide an occupying army after hostilities have dimished, ie: Balkins, Rwanda, Liberia.

And regarding sanctions, so what?  The UN imposed sanctions as a result of 14 resolutions over a period of 17 years on Saddam's Iraq.  They accomplished nothing.  The sanctions were as porous as a sieve.   Do you think anything will be different if the UN imposes sanctions on Iran?

Quote:


Part 1 - I know. I find it difficult trying to comunicate on issues like this without reference to them. History may be 60 years ago, but yesterday is also history. Ok I'm splitting hairs.

Part 2. It was too late then. Japan had already bene in China for years by that time. Slightly exagerating here, but it would be a bit like the UK putting sactions on Nazi Germany. It wouldn't make a scrap of difference.

Quote:


The UN is an organisation for war as well as peace. SOmetimes war must happen to prevent greater wars. If only troops had moved in to check Germany when it re-entered the Rhineland.


Sorry for the politics. Hopefully I've said nothing too contraversial.

I know - I'm torn between the two things. But I agree with you there.
Probably best I now delete it.

Quote:

Not true.  If the West, and more specifically the US, had not imposed sanctions against Japan's war resources, Japan had little reason to expand the war beyond the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.  Japan's main concern was their resource pool and fighting communism.

If anything Japan wanted to show up the Western powers and prove it was superior, if not their equal.

PS: Sorry, I went to modify it.  Not sure what's unclear.

Well, there are two points.

• Their quest for resources encompasses many things: Their version of lebensraum, partyline racism and not surprisingly, politics.
• I try to do history from points of view.  From an American point of view, sure Japan was agressive and grabbing land, but then what would you call the Spanish-American War and the subsequent results with Philippines and Cuba?

2nd time around.....I had already typed this up, but explorer crashed and I had to re-type this. This time around, I typed this up in Notepad, saving it every couple minutes....

I was thinking about this topic, and since my grandfather was almost killed by a suicide japanese pilot during WW2, I wanted find and look through a book that my grandfather had given me so I didn't get anything wrong. The book is about the story of a ship my grandfather served on during WW2. The author of the book was the ship's commanding officer. The ship was the USS England, a destroyer escort. What is amazing about this ship is that it sank six Japanese submarines in twelve days, more than any other US ship.

On 9 May 1945, while patrolling northwest of Okinawa, the group of ships came under attack by Japanese fighters/light bombers, and the ship went to general quarters. My grandfather, who was one of several radio operators, went to his battle station to help with the ammuntion, or something like that. During the attack, a damaged Japanese Val flew into the ship, above mid deck, and killing 37 sailors, and wounding 40 others.

It isn't clear if the aircraft was originally a kamikaze or if it was simply trying to bomb them and the pilot decided to crash into the ship because of the damages his aircraft had sustained. But whatever the case was, he was scuicidal at the end....

The Japanese aircraft destroyed the radio/communications compartment on the ship, killing every radio operator on the ship, that is, all except my grandfather. I don't know why my grandfather was the only radio operator who was assigned a battle station away from the radios, and it's terrible that the other operators, and his friends were killed, but I am glad he survived.

As a result of being hit by the Japanese aircraft on May 9 1945, the USS England was taken out of the war.

Here's a link to the book on Amazon.

Antisubmarine Warrior in the Pacific : Six Subs Sunk in Twelve Days

Esselback,

cool story!   

This is what Kamikaze's did to the Aaron Ward off Okanawa

All valid points.  I suppose connotations are very subject to interpretation.