Talk:Kamikaze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kamikaze is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
High This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Japan To-do:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

An event mentioned in this article is an October 21 selected anniversary.

Contents

[edit] Korean kamikaze pilots?

The article on Japanese occupation of Korea says that many Kamakaze were Koreans, forced into it by the Japanese. Could we have some details on this please?

If you think that an article on Wikipedia lacks information on a certain aspect of the subject, the best way to get that information into the article is to do it yourself instead of asking everyone else to do it for you. If you can locate a credible source (even if in another language, but English sources are better) about Korean Kamikaze pilots, then please enter the information in the article, provide inline citations, and list the source(s) in the references section at the bottom of the article. Cla68 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Roh Yong U perished in a suicide attack against a U.S. B-29 bomber on May 5, 1945. His rank got a double promotion to captain after he died. But, despite his hero status, his remains long stayed in limbo-labelled as "kin unknown" until his war buddies and others pursued his case. Under the pre-war Soshi-kaimei ordinance that compelled Koreans to adopt Japanese family and given names, Roh had died as "Kiyoharu Kawada." [1]

[edit] Romaji

I think the romaji are bad. Shouldn't it begin "shinpuu..."?

[edit] Selbstopfer

What is "Selbstopfer"? Anyone got an idea? Taku 07:16 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

German Kamikaze see article. Ericd

Why did you delete ?

Don't just put the title of article that doen't exist. Imagine if I put like "Takukaze"? Can you judge if it is a joke or serious something?

Taku 15:59 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

To create a new article you need to link it somewhere before editing the article. So don't be to fast in removing links to non-existent articles. Ericd

No I am asking not put a new title but just put it with some description. Taku 16:28 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

Actually Ericd is right. When Nazi Germany was being bombed by the British tword the end of World War 2 in Europe the Nazis needed a weapon. They thought their own Kamikaze attacks would work. On one morning of April 1945 they launched their attack. German me 262 jet fighters got the attention of the P-51 Mustangs and took chase. then over 20 or 30 Me 109 fighters came in and crashed into bombers. Not much is known of this attack. I heard this in a History Channel documantery. Nathaniel13. Leave me a message if you want to know about something about world war 2.

[edit] Yamamoto

The admiral with overall command on 10/18/44 cannot have been Yamamoto since he was ambushed and killed on 4/18/43.

[edit] Taran and Davy Crockett

Perhaps also Taran and Davy Crockett (nuclear device) should be mentioned. Like Selbstopfer it isn't certain death, but very risky. // Liftarn

If the Davy Crockett (nuclear device) is related then we should say why in the Davy Crockett article. How dangerous is it. How dangerous is the Special Atomic Demolition Munition? --Gbleem 16:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] First kamikaze attack in WW2

The article says "The first kamikaze strike came on October 25, 1944, off the Philippine island of Leyte. Twenty-six Mitsubishi Zeros were split into four groups to attack shipping, and five of these were able to hit the US aircraft carrier St. Lo with their load of 250kg of explosives. "

But wasn't the first attack actually on HMAS Australia, four days earlier? Grant65 (Talk) 10:32, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)


That 21 Oct date needs checking; I've seen 25 Oct, too, cred to Lt (sr grade) Seki Yukio. Also, "divine wind" bears looking at; it's commonly rendered that way, but I've seen "divine typhoon", which strikes me more apt, given the storm that wrecked Kublai's fleet in 1281... Trekphiler 16:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The first attack by the official Kamikaze unit was on October 25. Nevertheless every account of the attack on Australia on October 21 describes it as a "kamikaze" or "suicide attack".
In the absence of a Japanese language expert who says that kamikaze should translated as "divine typhoon" I would stick with the conventional translation. Grant65 | Talk 12:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Litteraly, Kami (神) is "God", and Kaze (風) is "Wind" => "Wind of the Gods", or "Divine Wind". Typhoon is an altogether different word: 台風 ("Taifuu", Great Wind).PHG 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

大尉 Yukio Seki was the first OFFICIAL kamikaze-pilot. 19 October was ordered to report to Asaichi Tamai, his officer. There was also present one of the officers (Rikihei Inoguchi) of admiral Takijiro Onishi (who was the leader of 1st flotilla). Tamai had asked Seki to sit down and after this revealed him that admiral Onishi had been planning a suicide attack against american battlegroup near Philippines. There is a mention by another officer, that the meeting was very emotional and That Tamai had cried openly while asking Seki to "volunteer" to lead the attack. Tamai was surprised to find out after asking, that Seki was actually married, not single as they had thought (Seki had married 31 may 1944). On the outside, Seki looked calm and determined, but inside he was bitter and doubtfull. He couldn't understand why a skilled pilot like himself would be wasted in such a foolish way. Right before his flight he told the reporter of Domei, Masashi Onoda, that he wasn't going to do his attack for some abstract reason like saving his fatherland, but for his wife.

This all would actually suit better the article about him, but perhaps some info could be added to this article too? --Ningyou 07:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The characters 神風 can be read as either しんぷう "shinpū" or かみかぜ "kamikaze". My reading of the article is that the reading "kamikaze" in Japan only applies to the wind in the Mongolian invastion and that "shinpū" only is used to refer to the WWII suicide attacks. If this is the case, why did English adopt the wrong reading? Was "kamikaze" used in Japan at the time but no longer used? Did western translators find only the older term in Japanese dictionaries current at the time? Can anybody provide any help. I'm asking so I can make the Wiktionary article on 神風 as accurate as possible. — Hippietrail 12:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Japanese word for "Kamikaze" isn't even shimpū, but 特別攻撃隊 (Tokubetsukōgekitai) or short 特攻隊 (Tokkōtai). I think Kamikaze should be an article about the real Kamikaze (the typhoons). The german, chinese and japanese wikipedias actually use the japanese words for the articles. The german wikipedia has a disambiguation page de:Kamikaze — Hokanomono 09:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It matters not a whit what the correct term in Japanese is. Kamikaze is the term used in English. —Morven 11:29, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
The point is, there should be an article about 神風. If "Kamikaze" is an english word, there will be no reason to show the Kanji for kamikaze. I will remove the image. — Hokanomono 12:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Limonade" in German means sodapop. "Gung ho" is an abreviation for "industrial worker's cooperative" in Chinese.
No problem with that. If the english word is "Kamikaze" then there should be an article for it. — Hokanomono 12:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anybody interested in this topic may be interested in this thread on Languagehat, a language blog. — Hippietrail 13:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • The Japanese Wikipedia article on 特別攻撃隊 (tokubetsu kōgeki tai) sais that the air suicide squads from the navy (and only those) were called 神風特別攻撃隊 (kamikaze tokubetsu kōgeki tai). — Hokanomono 16:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Main Wave-- damage to major ships

"No US aircraft carriers . . . were . . . severely damaged by kamikazes at Okinawa . . ." Not true. The USS Bunker Hill (CV-17), was knocked out of the war and never returned to service as an aircraft carrier. The authority cited for this claim refers only to ships sunk, not those damaged. And by any usage of the term the Bunker Hill was severely damaged, perhaps moreso than any other US carrier not actually sunk other than USS Franklin (CV-13). Anyone disagree? Kablammo 03:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction made. Kablammo 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historicity of Kamikaze

Ironically, poor quality materials and workmanship may be more directly accountable for the Mongol's fleet defeat rather than weather phenomena 1.
According to recent research, poor materials and shipbuilding may have been the real reason for the Mongol defeat, rather than weather phenomena.1.

I've read NewScientist's report. Judging from that brief conference report, their new theory does not break the accumulation of four hundred-year-old researches on this topic. To review them, I recommend you to read Mōko shūrai kenkyūshi ron 蒙古襲来研究史論 by Kawazoe Shōji 川添昭二 (1977). This book is a little dated but handy for reference.

There are some points to keep in mind before examining details. Whether kamikaze really blew is different from whether kamikaze was the primary reason of the Mongols' defeats. And we have to separate historical facts and historical interpretation of the Mongol invasions.

Did kamikaze really blow? The Mongols invaded Japan in 1274 and 1281. So the question is: did kamikaze really blow twice? Researches have focused on the invasion of 1274. You may don't know but scholars have discussed for nearly 50 years whether a typhoon forced an end to the invasion of 1274. The "kamikaze controversy" was first raised by the meteorologist Arakawa Hidetoshi 荒川秀俊 in 1958. He claimed that kamikaze did not blew in 1274. His claim is based on the fact that credible Japanese sources do not state that Mongols were struck by a disaster. They only state that the Mongols landed in northern Kyushu in the 20th day of the 10th month (November 26) but that Japanese found them gone in the next morning. In addition, it is unlikely that a typhoon hits northern Kyushu in late November. Supporters of the kamikaze of 1274 refer to the Korean source Tongguk Tongam, which states that they were struck by heavy rainfall at night and that fleets crushed into rocks. According to Goryeosa, the Mongol army took one month to return to a Korean port and lost one half of soldiers. So scholars proposed another theory: the Mongols was hit by a disaster not in Hakata Bay but on their way to a Korean port, in other words, somewhere Japanese could not witness the turmoil. This theory conforms to secondary Japanese sources, and I think this is generally supported in Japan. It is a bit surprising that NewScientist's report supports this theory without question.

Next, did kamikaze blew in 1281? Definitely yes. There is no doubt Mongols were struck by a typhoon in 1281. Be careful! Contrary to the sensational lead, NewScientist's report supports the existence of the typhoon.

Then was kamikaze the primary reason of the Mongols' defeats? If we support the theory that Mongol ships were destroyed on their way home in 1274, it is clear that kamikaze was not the reason for Mongols' retreat. According to Yuanshi, the Mongols defeated Japan but since they were not in good condition and arrows were exhausted they decided to retreat. Some scholars claim that Mongols did not seriously intend to conquer Japan in 1274.

What about the invasion of 1281? The Eastern Route Army of the Mongols battled arrived at Hakata Bay in the 6th day of the 6th month. They fought with Japanese soldiers until the 13th day. They gave up landing in Kyushu and retreated to an island. The Jiangnan Army joined The Eastern Route Army in the 7th month. During this time, small naval battles were fought but neither side gained decisive victories. At night in the 30th day of the seventh month when the Mongols were again raid Hakata Bay, they were hit and almost completely destroyed by a strong storm.

Was kamikaze the primary reason of the Mongols' defeats in 1281? I don't think so. Nearly two months had passed since the first arrival at Hakata Bay, but they failed to establish a bridgehead in Kyushu. It's not so surprising that someone was struck by a natural disaster if he/she floats there in that season. For the same reason, poor materials and shipbuilding couldn't be the primary reason even if it is true. It would have had no problem with that typhoon if they had landed in Kyushu.

Lastly, we have to distinguish history of facts and that of thoughts. Some researches suggest that the idea of divine winds was mainly developed by the imperial court and Buddhists rather than samurai who actually fought against Mongols. And the idea itself underwent various changes over time. But it goes beyond my interest. --Nanshu 14:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think this is relevant material and could be included, rather than omitting all reference to it.Grant65 (Talk) 02:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
No. This doesn't belong to this article. We need an article on the Mongol invasions of Japan and that would be the right place to put these stuffs. --Nanshu 14:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they also rammed fighters into B-29s, with some success. Any articles on the subject?-LtNOWIS 07:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese and English usage

This is not "the Wikipedia", but "the English-language Wikipedia". So English terminology should be used.

However, if kamikaze (かみかぜ) is primarily used in Japanese to refer to weather (Mongols, typhoons) that is interesting and should be noted in the etymology section. We might even start an article on the Mongol typhoons, and link to it from kamikaze.

But we also need an article on the Japanese suicide attack planes, the men who piloted them, their tactics, their success rate, how it impacted US Naval shipping, etc.

Like it or not kamikaze has made its way into the English language with a meaning perhaps different from the "true Japanese meaning". That's just the way it goes. The word pollyanna is a distortion of the attitude of the little girl in the story Pollyanna: her optimism was healthy, it healed a family and inspired an entire town; the word is used to mean someone with unrealistic optimism - nearly an antonym of the character's real mood.

I'd like to move the current intro down to the Etymology section, and describe kamikaze as Japanese suicide bombers of World War II. Uncle Ed 13:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. There is a chance that I harbor unconscious bias. My grandfather co-founded the company whose planes shot down innumerable Japanese planes during the war. Perhaps this makes me veer too much to the American military side of things, so please caution me if I make a mistake. Thanks! Uncle Ed 13:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Ed, even though I started the kamikaze (typhoon) page, I disagree with the suggestion because there is widespread awareness and usage of kamikaze, by English language speakers, to refer to the typhoon, even if this is secondary to the main usage. We have to write for all English speakers, not just people in the US, Australia, etc. Grant65 (Talk) 13:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

We might need a kamikaze (disambiguation) page, or a top link to kamikaze (typhoon). By the way, does kamikaze simply mean "typhoon", or is there a particular type of typhoon known as kamikaze? Uncle Ed 16:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kamikaze (神風) means literally "Divene wind" in english. The meaning's of the Kanji are 神 = god, spririt, soul, mind etc. 風 = wind, air, style, manner. In Japan KAmikaze basicly refers to the storm, or series of storms that sunk the mongolian invasion fleet (well, most of it) and other similar storms that happened later. They used Kamikaze to refer to the suicide attacks UNOFFICIALLY, since japanese didn't want to actually refer to them as suicides. Also they saw the pilots and their planes as the divine wind that would sunk the american fleet just like the storm had sunk the mongolian fleet. The japanese word for Typhoon itself is Taifuun. --Ningyou 07:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Just without the 'n' on the end. ;o) ShizuokaSensei 08:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


There is already a top link to kamikaze (disambiguation), where kamikaze (typhoon) is already listed. "Divine wind" I believe, refers only to the 1281 typhoon, although it may have been used metaphorically in relation to other, similar events before 1944. Grant65 (Talk) 17:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Ought it to be noted that nearly all americans butcher the pronunciation of the word, making it more like kamakazi or kamekazi? The karaoke article has such a mention.

So those pronunciations are incorrect? :-) That makes me wonder if it isn't all English speakers who mispronounce it? You would need to show the correct pronunciation using International Phonetic Alphabet symbols. Grant65 | Talk 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If a word has passed fully into anther language, as with kamikaze, then the point about it's pronunciation in relation to the original native prnunciation becomes moot. It's now an English word of Japanese origin; the pronunciation of which needs not bare any relation to the Japanese and isn't 'wrong' if it doesn't. Why the karaoke article makes this point is a bit baffling to my mind. ShizuokaSensei 09:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The English pronunciations of it aren't incorrect, but they are different. "Kamikaze" came recently into the English language from Japanese, and is still associated with Japan, so I think it's worth noting the differences in IPA. --Galaxiaad 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the English word, not the Japanese word. It is true that it is a Japanese term, but has passed into the English language. Many other words, including proper nouns, have passed into English, are are pronounced by English-speakers in ways which may make speakers of the language from which the term came wince. But once the word had been adopted (as this one has) its pronunciation used by speakers of the new language is not "incorrect". ShizuokaSensei said it very well above; the point is restated now because of a recent edit.[1] Kablammo 12:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The English pronunciation is indeed wrong. Very, very wrong. The Japanese language does not swap vowel tones in and out like English does, so a native speaker reading a Japanese word is going to assume by cognitive bias that pronunciation rules are similar to that of English. 74.242.99.247 11:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supposed Danish jazz fusion band

Someone added material about a band to the bottom of the article. I was going to move it to a separate article but a Google search came up with nothing about the band. Which leads me to think that it's a hoax, as they are supposed to have released a CD. Grant65 | Talk 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Were all the kamikaze pilots volunteers?

On a BBC documentary, one Japanese pilot in an interview said that the kamikazes in his unit were drafted, not volunteers. Is there any other information about how many were actually volunteers?

Good question. I will check this. Grant65 | Talk 02:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The pilots were given a questionaire which will ask them whether they would like to join the kamikaze or not. Those who do not join will be isolated by their mates and will be forced to fly everyday under the enemy's fire until they die.

I think it is important to remember that suicide attacks were the norm for the Imperial military, not the exception. Gyokusai ("to die in honor") was a genuine wish among the military (and even civilians). That is why surrounded Japanese soldiers would lead suicide charges rather than surrender. I have spoken with former Japanese soldiers who were slated for suicide attacks (neither were "kamikaze" -- they were to ram boats strapped with mines into a US ship). Both had been "drafted," but both claim that they actually wanted to do the attacks at the time. It wasn't until after the war that they came around. (By the way, perhaps an entry for gyokusai is needed?) Ginstrom 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The existing text questioning whether they were "really" "volunteers" is good, but... it would be good to also have some additional info about the extent to which any of these personnel ever tried to decline the honor, what they did, and what happened then -- all in terms of the reality at the time, not our reality now looking back -- to the extent that such info exists. 69.87.203.26 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-WWII kamikaze omitted, why?

Why there is no mention of the 9/11 kamikaze? Also, there was a kamikaze attack against US Navy invasion ships in Lebanon in 1982 using explosives-laden general aviation airplanes. The attack on USS Cole was also kamikaze. A warship is always a legitimate target. 195.70.32.136 09:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In English, at least, the word kamikaze is usually used only for the attacks by Japanese military pilots during 1944-45, although as the introduction notes, it is sometimes used as a synecdoche for suicide attacks in general. However, it is rare to hear the word used in relation to suicide attacks in general. Grant65 | Talk 11:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please let's keep all the Post-WWII suicide-attack general material out of this article, and just link to it at the top, like it is now. 69.87.203.26 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effectiveness of Kamikaze Pilots

I think I would interesting to note how effective kamikaze bombings were from a military perspective. For example, let say if 100 total pilots attacked, and 10% hit, and each killed 500 people (obviously my numbers are greatly skewed), then the kamikaze's would have been a successful military tactic (provided the cost of their aircraft did not outweigh this loss of life). At least some sentence, if not a section, should be included in the article about its effectiveness, because that is one of the main questions that comes to my mind.

See Kamikaze#Effects. Grant65 | Talk 02:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background

This section needs a little work. It gives too much emphasis to the Battle of Midway as a cause of IJN pilot losses. While that battle undoubedly was the turning point in the war, it was but one element in the battle of attrition which eventually made IJN aircrew losses unsustainable. Of equal or greater importance were the airwar over the Southwest Pacific which eventually broke the strength of the IJN forces then land-based at Rabaul, and especially the Marianas Turkey Shoot which virtually eradicated the IJN's remaining carrier aircrews. Which brings us the the next point: the plane most responsible for the Marianas victories was the F6F Hellcat. Two contributors have changed Hellcat references to the P-51 Mustang. While the Mustang was a very effective airplane, it was not deployed to the Pacific in any numbers until late in 1944, after the IJN pilots had been defeated by Navy and Marine pilots in F4U Corsairs and Hellcats (not to mention Kiwis in P-40s, USAAF Fifth Air Force pilots in P-38s, etc). Therefore I have changed it back; if there is some authority for the proposition that the Mustang was a substantial factor in the air war which led the Japanese to turn to kamikazes, lets discuss it here. Kablammo 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The other matters discussed in the first section of the above post have now been made. Kablammo 21:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Junk information in this article

This article doesn't seem to be able to decide what it is about. If we had an article on "Bug"- we could start off as this article begins, by similarly stating "In the english language, bug ican mean any "creepy-crawly", insect, or other arthropod". We could then proceed from such a foggy sense of the term to mix a discussion of all these other creepy crawly impressionistic statements which an examination of true "bugs"- members of the order Hemiptera. And we'd wind up with a mess.

My question is- how do you folks want it? If this article is about the general impressionistic definition of what "Kamikaze" has come to mean, then I will leave this article politely alone and redirect people interested in real facts concerning real kamikaze units elsewhere- perhaps to Japanese Special Attack Units article so that precise statements can be made.

It's not possible to have it both ways. There is considerable confusion due to US sailor accounts of what was genuinely percieved as a "suicidal" attack versus attacks from actual Kamikaze units. Some folks have clearly tried to straighten this out, but others want to muddy it up by propagating the claim that their ship and not others fought off the most fearsome kamikazes or lay claim to the title of fighting off the very first kamikazes. Even worse- those who assert that the distinction between actual kamikaze units and regular units are meaningless- supporting this with the stereotype that japanese soldiers were suicidal fanatics anyway. Please. Let's move out of this foggy thinking.

Let's instead start out the article stating that Kamikaze has been used generally to mean many kinds of different suicidal attacks attempted by Japanese forces, but this article will confine itself to facts concerning actual Kamikaze units.

Consider the statement regarding the toll of the first Kamikaze attacks- it is wildly innaccurate, and seems to be borrowed from http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html. It states:

23-26 Oct44. Off Leyte, 55 Kamikaze pilots, in the first planned mass suicide attacks of the war, coordinated with the IJN attack on Leyte Gulf, hit the escort carriers and sank the St. Lo (CVE-63) and damaged the large escorts Sangamon (CVE-26), Suwannee (CVE-27), Santee (CVE-29), and small escorts White Plains, Kalinin Bay, and Kitkun Bay. In all, 7 carriers were hit and 40 other types damaged; five ships were sunk, 23 heavily damaged, and 12 moderate damage.

The article has modified this statement to be "the period ending October 26th" in order to jibe with correct note that the first Kamikaze unit did not attack until October 25th. Ok, so subtracting two days from this fantasy statement is going to make the tally more accurate? How do we know what carnage the ww2pacific author was adding in on the 23rd and 24th? How many planes should be subtracted? Who knows.

Ok- so if the general statement of this passage is bogus, perhaps something can be salvaged amoungst the details? So we know the first official attack was by Seki's unit on Taffy 3 resulting in the St. Lo's destruction. We know this is true.. But this attack according to St. Lo's action report took place at 1050. Well guess what. The attack on Santee and Sangamon of Taffy one happenned earlier at 0740, and according to their action reports, came from planes from Davao, not Luzon where the Kamikaze squadrons were based. From the 25th through the end of the battle hey didn't get an damage from aircraft other than this non kamikaze attack. So ok. At least two carriers shouldn't be on this list. (Support info here) and here

Even if these other details were not incorrect, the claim of 55 kamikaze is particularly odd. As of the first attack, there was a total of 24 Tokkotai pilots. Period There weren't 55 available to die during this period.

So that entire passage is utter junk information. Does it end with this passage? Sadly, no.

"Captain Masafumi Arima is also sometimes credited with inventing the kamikaze tactic on October 15, 1944". No amount of weazel words will protect anyone from the fact they are repeating an old wives tail that the policy came up suddenly or spontaneously in October 1944.

  • What was that little bit about the Emperor on February 1944 authorizing the Army and Navy to develop and use suicide weapons?
  • Or how about that in July 1943 that a naval officer was specifically recommending to Ohnishi that suicide plane attacks be used against ships?
  • Or that long before Arima's mission that Japanese radio and newspapers were urging young men to volunteer for suicide attacks on ships and planes?
(According to Chapters 3 and 4 of the warner and warner book I listed as a reference in the article.)

So what shall it be- let "Kamikaze" continue to be an article about indefinate creepy crawlies, or shall we be precise about what the article is about?

-Mak Thorpe 08:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason for the vagueness is that there is more than one accepted definition of kamikaze in the English language. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to decide on definitions; the point is to cover and evaluate everything that a particular word or term can or does mean in popular usage and — if necessary — refer the reader to other articles for more precise information. There is nothing unique about this article in this respect: Football (for example) is a similiar case. Grant65 | Talk 09:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


You missed why I compared this with the article on bugs and not football. Compare the variant senses of football to the following cases:
    • Case 1: There is a gunner staring at a dive bomber coming down at him and he very understandibly believes he was under attacked by a Kamikaze. Pilot pulls out of his bomb run and the gunner realizes it wasn't a Kamikaze but hey- it makes a good war story the other way.
    • Case 2: The gunner kills the pilot and the plane piles into the ship or crashes into the water nearby. Everyone on the ship is dead sure the plane was a Kamikaze.
    • Case 3: the pilot's plane is so shot up his bomb will not release and he is so injured he believes he will blead to death on the flight back to base even if he could pull out. So he does the heroic thing and makes sure his bomb blows up the carrier.
    • Case 4: an event planned informally by the flyers as a suicide attack but not conducted by a Kamikaze unit.
    • Case 5: An attack that appears identical to Case 2, 3 and 4, but was actually conducted by a Kamikaze unit.
    • Case 6: A pilot splashes a plane not knowing it was on a Kamikaze mission.
With football, we can identify which is which because we have precise definitions of what gridiron, rugby union, league etc. mean. On what basis can we say something is or is not a Kamikaze attack? How do we make any definitive statements if in order to use this vague definition we have to get inside the head of the pilot at the moment of the attack? Is it a Kamikaze attack just because someone felt is was probably a Kamikaze attack? How can we even talk about distinguishing case 2 from case 3? How can we prove that either were Kamikaze in the vague sense of the term used in the article?
I asked the question because I have no basis to clean up the nonsense in the ww2pacific quote. How do I know what meaning was intended when the original author came up with 55 "Kamikaze" pilots? And what is the standard for the Kamikaze designation- how many sailors on the ship have to agree they were under a Kamikaze attack? Is it a Kamikaze attack only if it is against ships? How about against planes too? How about attacks using something other than a plane? Is it proper to call manned torpedos or boats Kamikaze? I think we should include all Tokkotai weapons, but if we are to employ the open spirit of the open definition of this article, where are the limits? What about field improvised weapons? If a group of japanese soldiers packed a staff car full of explosives and drove it under white flag and exploded it in the midst of marines, would that be Kamikaze? How about if the soldier did the same with a satchel of explosives on a suicide charge that couldn't possibly result with the japanese attacker living. Should we be talking about Banzai attacks as Kamikaze infantry tactic? If so, maybe Foch and Haig pioneered the Kamikaze concept in the first world war, only they did it with 60,000 lives at a time, not just a few dozen at a time like the Japanese did.
Let's talk about the reality of the situation. The general sense used in the article must assess what was in the mind of the attacker. One guy's opinion is as good as anyone else's on that one.


Concerning cases involving actual Kamikaze units, we have some documentation on which to base factual statements about what the intentions of the attacker were.


Much of the he rest of it is about "Bugs"- some people call snails and slugs "Bugs". And they are entitled to. We just don't have encyclopedic articles on such muddled concepts. If the reader wants to talk about insects, we send them there, if true bugs, we send them there. We get them to think clearly and disambiguate what it is they are trying to talk about.


I don't have any problem about having an article attempting to separate cases of 1, 2, 3 and 4 from exagerated stories that veterans tell. It does the fallen more honor to stick to the facts of what it was really like, not the version told in the bar or on the hollywood screen, or the fictions fabricated on the History channel.[2] And I am not saying that grey areas disqualify subjecs- There are useful things to be said about the Arima, HMAS Australia, and the Indiana and Reno attacks.

-Mak Thorpe 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the word Kamikaze is so un-Japanese, I'd suggest we let this article be a hodge-podge of external impressions, and use some Special Attack Unit article for the real info from the Japanese point of view. 69.87.203.26

I'm ok with using the Japanese Special Attack Units article to present the subject of actual Tokkotai units (assuming that is what you mean by Japanese POV). There may be some unnavoidable overlap though. I think that in the opening para, the users be should be informed of the distinction between the articles- that the special attack units article is about actual Kamikaze units and that this article- is about something else (you fill in the blank here). Lastly, I think that that erroneous statements about actual Kamikaze units such as those I listed be modified in some way. I don't really care how its done. As I said, so long as it doesn't make blatantly false statements, I will leave this article politely alone. -Mak Thorpe 02:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed this passage from the introduction:
"By 1945 it was apparent that Japan was losing the War in the Pacific, so suicide missions were Japan's last attempt to balance the ever increasing technological and material advantage of the U.S. forces advancing to the Japanese Homeland. The Japanese Tokubetsu Kougekitai strategy ("Special Attack Force") was a direct response to the fact, that the Imperial Japanese Navy had lost almost all of it's aircraft carriers, while the U.S. Forces had numerous carriers and thousands of aircraft. From October 25, 1944, to January 25, 1945, Japanese Kamikaze pilots sunk two U.S. escort carriers and three U.S. destroyers."
It's all covered below and it gives the impression that: only the IJN had kamizazes, that only one Japanese unit was involved, and that only the U.S. was involved on the Allied side. Grant65 | Talk 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The deletion was an improvement. Other thoughts: There is a lot of discussion of Japanese terminology but more than is needed. The section on the first Kamikaze unit does not really fit in as it doesn't really go anywhere-- where are the transitions? The article could also benefit from a discussion of the effects-- not the material effects, but whether the kamikaze phenomenon affected Allied decisions in the Pacific war, such as willingness to use atomic bombs. I'll leave that to others but will try to clean up the background section, as mentioned above. Kablammo 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamikaze Tanto Knife

Has anyone ever heard of this:

"In theory, Japanese kamikaze pilots were to commit seppuku in the last few seconds before crashing their planes into American ships. I kind of have my doubts about how often it was actually done - even when the knife is worn hanging in a sheathe around your neck, I'd imagine it would be kind of tough to pull it out and disembowel yourself while trying to accurately target a ship that's blasting all of it's anti-aircraft weaponry at you. (...) The procedure was to pull the knife out from it's neck sheath and thrust it straight into the throat much like the womans form of seppuku."

http://therionarms.com/sold/com195.html


--Felix c 18:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survivors

Interesting article. I run into it trying to know if an assertion I found in a magazine ("14% of kamikaze pilots survived their suicide attacks") was true or not. Does anyone know something about it? Perhaps the survivors didn't attack at all, but were escort pilots of the same units?

--Ignacio González 08:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personnel involved in the development of World War II suicide attacks

I just discovered this article. It seems to be a big mess of information relating to people involved in Kamikaze attacks. Could somebody more familiar with the topic take a look at it, merge any relevant/useful information into this article, and then delete it? Bobo12345 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea.Grant65 | Talk 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grafitti

The following line seems to be an instance of grafitti: "According to legend, all kamikazees were faggots. " If this line is meant to be accurate, in that kamikaze pilots were said to be homosexual, then the line should be edited to "...all kamikazees were homesexuals." Faggot is offensive and confusing (different uses in British v. American English). amagidow

It was idiotic vandalism that should be reverted immediately... Don't be too confused with it... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sushi

(eat sushi) (特別攻撃隊), which literally means "special sushi unit who the heck wrote this crap? I didn't know that 特別攻撃隊 can be translated as sushi? I am deleting this idiodic piece of junk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.251.163 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Deleted reference to book "The Kamikaze Mind"

Dear Kablammo,

Re - the entry you cut.

I thought that it would be interesting to mention the "The Kamikaze Mind" by Richard James Allen (Brandl & Schlesinger, 2006) because it relates to ways in which the idea of Kamikaze has been read in the West. In fact, as I mentioned, Mr. Allen has a rather unique and creative perspective on the subject having lived in Japan for 6 and half years as a child. While his book is not a historical reading of the Kamikaze concept, it has been creatively inspired by it and reflects on it, in particular in terms of the ideas of 'divine wind' and 'suicidal self-destruction'. Surely one of the most exciting things about history of ideas and symbols is their reimagining and revitalisation in different periods and contexts?

Ref. www.thekamikazemind.com

Best, Physical TV —The preceding comment added by User:PhysicalTV (talk • contribs) at 5:15, 10 March (UTC) at the top of the page, was moved to this spot by Kablammo (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

The entry added by PhysicalTV, my reversion of it, and edit summaries are found at [3]. According to a description and reviews of the book at [4], linked at Richard James Allen, it is an imaginative work of poetry by a well-regarded creative artist. It seemed however to be too far removed from the subject matter of this article, even if inspired by that subject. I neither question the seriousness of the work nor the thoughts expressed above by PhysicalTV, only the book's relevance to this article. Therefore I removed the contribution and invited this discussion. The issues are:
  • (a) whether this article can address the cultural effects of the kamikaze phenomenon (I think it can);
  • (b) whether Mr. Allen's work is too far afield from that (from the website's description of its subject matter, I think it may be, but I have not read the book), and
  • (c) whether such an entry might open the door to links to works which, even though artistic in nature, still are commercial to the extent they may encourage purchases of a work of art (which begs the question of where the line can be drawn).
Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts. Thank you. Kablammo 11:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/m/Talk%7EKamikaze_dc53.html"