Japan in WW2


Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
Lisbon, Portugal
disagree. occasional self-sacrifice can be noble but I find organized group-level suicide abominable.
someone compared to suicide bombers today. I grant that the Kamikazes targeted military objectives.
Aren't most today's suicide bombers targeting military objectives or police facilities? The suicide bombings that usually get mentioned in international news are the ones that target civilians (and targeting civilians usually get a higher death toll), but I saw somewhere that most suicide bombings from 2003 till 2016 have been towards military targets and security personnel - especially in Iraq, Yemen and Syria (most suicide bombings takes place in those three countries) - how's that any different than Japanese pilots crashing their planes on military ships in the Pacific War?

Besides, those Kamikaze pilots didn't exclusively chose crashing over military targets out of moral and ethical reasons, they did it out of completely tactical reasons. They had no valuable civilian targets in the middle of the Pacific ocean. The only valuable civilian targets, were probably in the Philippines, but they didn't need planes to do the work - Japanese foot soldiers already slaughtered 100.000 Filipino civilians in Manila alone during the American invasion campaign of the Philippines in 1945.
I don't put a 1940s Japanese military soldier, suicide pilot or not, on a higher moral ground than a 2010s Isis fighter in Iraq or Syria - they are absolutely comparable.
I don't understand why we should respect them somehow. We might pity them, but should not respect their military conduct throughout the entire war.
Likes: Linschoten


Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
San Antonio, Tx
Well, the British had betrayed the French by signing a naval agreement with Germany, a complete violation of the treaty of Versailles. The British also betrayed France by sending only 500 000 men for the battle of France against Germany. The British expected the French to be cannon fodder and were wrong. They had no legal right to attack the French fleet, it was unprovoked as Edric said, unless losing the war is a provocation.

Regardless, Pearl Harbour wasn't classified as a war crime but as a crime against peace. The Tokyo trials didn't sentence anyone to death for Pearl Harbour, so even if it's a crime, there are magnitudes in that regard. Americans were outraged because the attack took place on their soil and while they don't really have qualms bombing other countries, they view it as a great insult when they're the ones being attacked.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor without any advance notice of even a few hours was a huge mistake. First, there was no follow through after the initial attacks. Second the oil storage tanks located on the hills overlooking Pearl Harbor were completely undamaged, meaning that they could continue to be used. The Japanese should have destroyed them. Third, the Japanese had no known follow up plan - it was as if all their planning stopped at the end of their initial attack. Fourth, there was no contingency plan for the possibility that the carriers were not at their home base instead of delivering airplanes to various bases. Occupation of French Frigate Shoals by US forces at the time prevented the Japanese from knowing where the carriers were.

Maybe the Japanese felt that after the initial victories, the allies - the Americans — would fold like a cheap tent. Remember, that when Pearl Harbor took place, the US Navy was at peace; in fact, the whole US Navy was still at peace, so there were, essentially, no prospects for immediate action in either the Pacific ofr the Atlantic.
Jul 2013
San Antonio, Tx
The Afrika Korea was fighting mainly in the dessert, significantly less civillians in theatre so that’s why DAK kept the image of fighting a clean war.

Japanese nationalism and war mentality had twisted the behavior of its troops. Russian prisoners in 1902 were treated with much mercy and civility. It was NOT a cultural trait to turn prisoners to slaves, rape everything and torture. That was a symptom of cocktail of weak leadership, propaganda and militarism.

Pearl Harbour was a crime, just as Britain bombed Paris, unprovoked, then declared war the next day.
When did the British bomb Paris?
Mar 2019
Maybe the Japanese felt that after the initial victories, the allies - the Americans — would fold like a cheap tent. Remember, that when Pearl Harbor took place, the US Navy was at peace; in fact, the whole US Navy was still at peace, so there were, essentially, no prospects for immediate action in either the Pacific ofr the Atlantic.

I strongly suggest this

Amazon.com: japan 1941 countdown to infamy

And the answer is going to surprise you
Jul 2013
San Antonio, Tx
But the treaty of Versailles also prevented Germany to build a strong navy, both Germany and the UK had signed the treaty of Versailles. So by what rights could the UK discard the limitations agreed at Versailles without consulting its allies ? At the Stresa conference, Italy, France and the UK had agreed to oppose against any repudiations of the treaties. The UK betrayed both France and Italy. Many British might not like to hear it, but their country bear its fair part of guilt in the german rearmament.

Maybe British are bad at geography, but France shares a direct border with Germany, I know the British were protected by the sea, but they should have taken it into consideration. The French did what they could to defend their country, mobilizing more than 5 millions men. British might also be bad when it comes to demography, so here is the thing : France had a population of 40 millions, Germany about 70 millions. France couldn't defeat Germany alone, and contrary to what happened during WW1, the Germans weren't fighting a two-fronts war in 1940. The British had sent millions of men in France during WW1, surely they should have realised what kind of sacrifices were needed to defeat Germany. Where were those men in 1940 ? The British only sent 500 000 men, for a country with roughly the same population as France, it's quite pathetic. So yeah, you can claim France should have defended itself, losing, again, millions of men in the process, but in the end, it was in the british interest to prevent the collapse of France.
Of course it was in the British interest to defend France against the Germans. It was also in France’s interests to do so. It was an accident of geography that placed the British on the far side of the English Channel, but history is anything but fair. The simple fact is, the Germans were spoiling for war and neither the French nor the British were doing so. Yes, I’m familiar with the British and French guarantees to Poland. These were a nice thing to do or give, but they weren’t practical or even achievable, in other words, probably a.mistake.
Likes: BuckBradley

Similar History Discussions