Kamikazi's

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:59 pm

Yes but how long does it take to train, equip, and sail a fleet to a distance in strike range all the while telling the other country you are commited to working toward peace.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:01 pm

In my opinion the best thing we ever did with those freindship medals was giving them to Doolittle and letting him give them back to Tokyo.

airnutz · **Posted:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:14 pm

k5083 wrote:

The "sleeping giant" was really an embargoing giant, a threatening giant, a provoking-war-in-every-way-it-could-think-of giant, a giant who knew a punch of some kind was coming. But unfortunately, a very overconfident giant.

August

Yep, the lesson should've been learned but was forgotten by 2001...don't kick over an anthill and then go take a nap.
My 2 cents before they lock this sukker down... :wink:

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:25 pm

I sure hope the thread is not locked. I have not seen anyone that is being nasty to anyone. No personal attacks. Nothing wrong with us discussing this. While we may not agree with some views, I think we can atleast take the views as valid, and can learn from them. Nothing wrong with that.

Any way back on topic. So why did Kamikazi's wear helmets.

airnutz · **Posted:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:44 pm

So far, so good...

John Dupre · **Posted:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:33 pm

k5083 wrote:

In a loose sense, the Kamikaze concept was extended even to capital ships. In the last battles of the Pacific war, entire task forces were sent out to battle with fuel for a one-way trip only.

The "sleeping giant" was really an embargoing giant, a threatening giant, a provoking-war-in-every-way-it-could-think-of giant, a giant who knew a punch of some kind was coming. But unfortunately, a very overconfident giant.

August

Sure but all of that was diplomacy, no matter how "threatening". Japan did not have to react with war to American diplomatic initiatives. Why did the US embargo and threaten Japan? In order to get the Japanese to leave China. We "provoked" a war in order to free China from a brutally expansionist Japan. Otherwise, what did America care for Japan at that point? If Japan had left China alone it could have imported all of its oil from Iran without ever going to war.

Hemiman · **Posted:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:25 pm

John..

Many believe the seeds of war between the US and Japan were planted in 1905 with the signing of Treaty of Portsmouth. Shortly after the signing, the Japanese Military establishment, infuriated with the treaty, designated that the United States was a "prime potential enemy" and as such, initial war plans were drawn up. Yamamoto was sent to the US in the spring of 1919 as part of the "know thine enemy" policy. Select Officers were chosen to be sent to "selected" Western countries to be educated and "learn" all they could about their future enemies. Quite a few books out there, including one on Yamamoto, point to that one particular Treaty as the beginning.

Bill

SaxMan · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:00 am

shrike wrote:

agent86 wrote:

you have to admire the japanese devotion to their cause.can you imagine US pilots crashing into japanese carriers and destroyers?
you cant say they werent comitted to the cause.

Actually I've read at least one account that claimed the Japanese were inspired by the damage done by a crippled F4F that did just that. Had it been a developed idea before that, the attack on Pearl might have been even worse.

At Midway, after the carriers were sunk and they were going after the surface ships, a U.S. dive bomber crashed one of the turrets on the Mikuma. The fire it started ended up out of control, and eventually the ship was sunk. Also, one of the B-26s that did not come back from the morning torpedo attack nearly crashed the island on the Akagi. Whether that was by design or by chance, we will never know. It was close enough that everyone on the bridge of the Akagi was certain it would hit.

JDK · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:49 am

Some problems with logical constructions here.

Pearl Harbour was dragged in to the discussion on the premise that it could've been worse had there been Kamikazes employed - A despairing defensive strategy was not going to be employed within an offensive operation at the start of a war. The damage at Pearl was major - but the decisive element was that the carriers were not there. Whatever the Japanese had used wouldn't have made Pearl 'worse' in a tactual sense.

The Kamikaze / Special Operations were a product of two factors - the military position Japan found itself in during 1944, and the form of militarism that had been developed there prior. What made it happen was Japanese command, not a despairing final gesture by an enemy airman. In general, rather than the specific Japanese programme (which had no Allied counterpart) suicidal missions are as old as warfare. Ascribing western inspiration under such Japanese efforts is essentially a minor modern variation of the same wartime canard that the Japanese were only ever copyists.

The route to W.W.II in the Pacific isn't simple enough for - nor covered in grade / junior school. A genuine interest in history should question simplistic interpretations. (Please note I'm not offering comment on any of the opinions or pre-war strategy.)

Regards,

k5083 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:23 am

I think, or at least hope, we could agree that the root causes of the Pacific war were complex. Certainly neither country was peaceably minding its own business. Both were trying to extend their imperial interests in Asia, albeit the Japanese much more aggressively in the immediate past. That was not really the subject of my post so much as the Hawaii attack as the specific means of starting the war. Most countries that start the shooting in a war, and that has included the US on many occasions, do so with a surprise attack and with no formal declaration of war. This was a brilliantly conceived, audacious and well executed surprise attack. The talk of treachery and foul play, at the time and all the way through the present, has mainly been a way of covering humiliation at being caught so unprepared. To put it in schoolyard terms, it is like one guy daring his opponent to throw the first punch, then finding himself on the ground and complaining about being sucker punched. In a situation where that guy then got up and creamed the opponent so thoroughly, he could afford to be a little more honest about the start of the fight.

August

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:47 am

August - I generally agree with what you said, but isn't there a moral argument as well that the things the Japanese were doing, say in Nanking, were a justifiable cause for sanctions and such?

Ryan

Dan K · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:42 am

RyanShort1 wrote:

August - I generally agree with what you said, but isn't there a moral argument as well that the things the Japanese were doing, say in Nanking, were a justifiable cause for sanctions and such?

Ryan

Ryan, I agree with your comment; other than sanctions were not nearly enough for what happened to Nanking.

Zachary · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 1:22 pm

mustangdriver wrote:

And PS I drive an American made car. Why you ask. Because my dad is a Pittsburgh Steelworker. Yes they do still exist. His company produces metal that is purchased by American auto companies.

Your American car was produced by a company that was co-owned by a German company, and is now co-owned by an Italian one. Two-thirds of the Axis is okay, but not the other? :shock:

I'm just giving you crap Chris.

whistlingdeath77 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:56 pm

XOXOXOX

edited for content that cross the lines of WIX Rules by TimApNy

whistlingdeath77 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:07 pm

XOXOXOX

Edited for content that does not fall in line with WIX Rules by TimApNy

Warbird Information Exchange

Kamikazi's

Who is online