What do modern Japanese think of Kamikaze pilots

The kamikaze pilots themselves weren’t evil; instead, they were immature idiots, just like Romeo and Juliet. The evil one were the officers who sent them out to certain die. Commanders are supposed to look after their troops.

The difference is twofold: first of all, a soldier sacrificing himself to take out a machine gun nest only does so because there was no other choice. They didn’t set out that morning to die, they set out to win. Dying was literally their last option. For a kamikaze pilot, it’s the first and only option. And that’s wrong - there are always other ways to sink a ship.

Second of all, soldiers who decide to sacrifice themselves *decide *to sacrifice themselves. It’s their own choice, taken freely. That’s what heroism is - taking initiative, making a tough decision. Turning off your brain and doing what you’re told is the opposite of being a hero.

Nope.

It’s very relevant. It had a lot to do with how Japan saw the world, and why Japan became a colonial power.

Best post of the thread.

But the fallacy there again is speaking of a ‘military environment’ as if it’s anything like a constant across cultures and times. The Japanese ‘military environment’ of that time was very different than Western of that time, and the recruits brought with them to begin with very different beliefs.

The quote you used has already been featured in the thread but I don’t believe the idea that kamikaze were ‘ordered’ in any general sense can be hung on that one quote. A mountain of other evidence says not. Even beyond ‘special attack’ a/c, mini subs and so forth late in the war, Japanese military units in every phase of that war had a distinct tendency to fight to the death in situations where Western ones viewed it as honorable to surrender. They weren’t ‘ordered’ in each case to do that, each man or small group in each dugout. It was their military ethic, not some more general one. And even the context of that one quote is someone asked to lead a special attack unit a couple of dozen less experienced men had just volunteered for.

Maybe an interesting meta-discussion would be why some casual Western students of the Pacific War (no serious student could) are so inclined to look for an explanation of Japanese suicide tactics in contemporary (or even now’s) Western terms. They must have been ordered, volunteering ‘in the military’ isn’t really volunteering, etc.

You’re looking for a distinction that would make this situation, or this country and time, and therefore these people, unique, sure, but there just isn’t one.

Every situation and every country, time and people are unique.

Yet people are pretty much the same in all of them. Remarkable, huh?

Only in the broadest terms.

The topic was never raised when I was in Japan. In general, I think most Japanese have one of the worst understandings of their history of any group of people on the planet. The way that they are taught strongly emphasizes dates and names, and largely ignores the context and effects of the topics that those dates and names are connected to. (Which is general to all of their historical studies, not just WWII.)

At least, unless things have changed in the last decade.

But so, really, the answer is “they don’t”.

The Nationalists would, obviously, defend and applaud the heroic actions. The Teacher’s Union and pacifists would probably take the same general view as Westerners do.

If you explained the history to your average Japanese, my guess would be that they would instinctively try to defend Japan’s place in WWII, simply by virtue of seeing no reason for someone to raise the topic that wasn’t to besmirch the country. But if they encountered the story themselves, say at a museum or something, probably they’d just be like, “Oh, how horrible was WWII. I’m glad that’s over.”

In my experience, Americans’ understanding of history isn’t that much better. The typical American’s understanding of what their country’s done isn’t much better than the average Japanese. Ditto for China. Ditto for a lot of countries.

There are Japanese people in Japan who actually do know what their country did and they’re ashamed of it, but they’re a minority and they’re usually academics who are curious enough to question the official monbusho version. But they’re few and far in between.

You all should read “Baa Baa Black Sheep” by Pappy Boyington. They later made the tv show based partly on it.

Boyington became a POW and got to observe the Japanese very closely. In the POW camps he found many guards that were sadistic brutes but he also encountered many Japanese that were disgusted by the war and how the whole ruling class had taken their country down the wrong path but felt powerless to do anything about them.

Japan was and is a monoculture. When a monoculture is under the sway of a good leader, it can do great things because people can collectively pull together for the common good in a way that’s not really possible in places with more fragmented demographics. But if it’s under the sway of a bad leader, the people can be led down horrible paths. This is what happened in Japan. The country was basically taken over by a cult.

When Japan fought a war with Russia in 1905, the Russian prisoners of war were by all accounts treated humanely. Japanese Army and Navy officers who interacted with Western observers were considered to be reasonable men who conducted themselves with honor. It was absolutely nothing like World War II.

I always have to laugh when Americans say “America needs to be more like Japan” when it comes to crime, guns, politeness, cleanliness, order, etc. Within LIVING MEMORY, Japan was so collectively dangerous that we had to drop nuclear bombs on them. America had to re-gear its entire industrial apparatus into a giant death machine to deal with Japan and their German allies. There are people still around today, who participated in this gigantic orgy of death. So yeah, you want America to “be like Japan”? You really want that? No, what these people want is for America to be like Japan is now, but the only reason that’s possible is because it’s now a monoculture under a good leadership rather than a bad one, and everyone is pulling together like one big family because that’s what their culture is like. (I know Japan does have its problems, like unemployment, overwork, alcoholism, and young men becoming shut-ins.) But still, it’s remarkable what they’ve achieved.

I have to give Japan major props for resisting colonialism or any kind of Western interference in their country, for such a long time. Like the UK, they went a very, very long time without being invaded or conquered, and they did not allow Christianity of the Inquisition variety to come in and fuck up their country. They managed to chart their own path historically, and were strong enough militarily to ward off potential interlopers in their collective national destiny, and I think that is worthy of some admiration. I also think what happened in WWII is a blip on their overall timescale, and that in the main, their culture has been benevolent, or at least no less so than any other country on the same timescale.

It’s amusing that you seem to be implying only one side pumped its young men up with nationalism and racism…

There was racism on the American side. But it was not promoted as official policy on the highest political and military levels in order to sanction torture and mass murder, as was the case with the Japanese and Germans (America also did not order suicide missions or encourage the idea of mass civilian deaths to further its ideals).

Not exactly, no. I mean, they only specified “every murdering Jap” be wiped out. Non-murdering ones, like civilians, would be fine, I’m sure.

My post wasn’t the clearest and I appreciate you trying to understand my point.

Japan did outright evil things during the war, killing millions upon millions of civilians throughout Asia. As a country, the military, individual commanders and individual soldiers committed widespread atrocities.

IMHO, Germany did worse because they set out with the deliberate intention of massacring millions.

In addition, the civilians Japanese civilians were not as culpable in the atrocities as German civilians.

Coming back to the question of how contemporary Japanese view the war, you have to understand that almost everyone just wanted it to be over and done with. The soldiers came back and remained silent; most until their death, with only a few speaking out after they were old men.

A few people were charged with directing the war; a number (wiki says 5,700) lower ranked personnel were charged with conventional war crimes; the military was disbanded; Japan occupied; a new constitution implemented and then the country set about rebuilding itself.

Those who lived through the war simply did not pass along the stories to their children. I never directly talked to anyway who was an adult during the war, but did have many conversations with those who had been children during the war.

On one occasion, I went to see The Day After, released in Japan as a feature film, with a friend in Nagasaki. She has been a young girl when the bomb had been dropped. Both the parents of my ex-wife had been in the firebombings of Tokyo. My former mother-in-law grew up in shitamachi, and survived the Great Tokyo Air Raid. They fled in one direction, their neighbors fled in another and didn’t survive. My former father-in-law grew up in another section of Tokyo and had one of the napalm bomblets drop into their crude bomb shelter on another one of the raids. As the oldest son he picked it up and threw it out into the street, where it exploded.

Often, when having those conversations, the children of these survivors had never heard the stories until they listened while I was talked to their parents. While these people would tell tell accounts of what happened, they never went into how they felt about it.

Japanese are stoic. They endured the unendurable; they quietly picked themselves up and rebuilt their country into what became for a while the second largest economy in the world. If they had been Allies instead of the Enemy, these civilians would have been looked upon has heroes, much in the same way Americans look at the British for surviving the Blitz.

I find your tu quoque arguments weak and unconvincing.

The Allies also bombed the crap out of German cities with a huge civilian death toll. The ethics of that are debatable too, but it wasn’t done out of a sense of racial superiority any more than the bombings of Japanese cities.

Dude, that’s not a tu quoque - American wartime racism in no way invalidates or excuses the same in the Japanese. My point is merely that the Japanese were not unique in inculcating their young warriors with racism and jingoism. Firebombing, Headhunting, Nuclear bombs, Internment…

Japan was shitty. Japan was not uniquely shitty.

You really need me to cite racist wartime propaganda about Germans, now?

There was some of it, but it wasn’t the same. There were and are lots of Americans of German ancestry, unlike the Japanese, so what are they going to do, make cartoons ridiculing the ancestry of like 40% of America? The Japanese, being non-“white” and a small minority, were easier to dehumanize with propaganda. They were consistently depicted as looking like evil little apes or goblins, even in Dr. Seuss cartoons. When American propaganda cartoons made fun of Germany, they really just made fun of Hitler and his close associates. When they made fun of Japan, they made fun of the entire nationality, in an extremely disrespectful way, very similar to the Nazis’ anti-Semitic cartoons, the KKK’s anti-black cartoons, etc. It just wasn’t the same.

Let’s look at the entire post of mine that sent you into a tizzy.

I don’t see anything there suggesting I believe the Japanese were “unique” in being racist.

The consequences of the virulently racist ideology of many Japanese and the acts it engendered (by those in power and including leaders intent on sacrificing their entire own population in a glorious demonstration of racial superiority) do not begin to compare with what the Allies did.

Massive tu quoque fail.