Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Kamikaze Pilots Video

June 4th, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

Zero has a thought-provoking post and video on kamikaze pilots at his blog.

http://zeroempty000.blogspot.com/2007/05/kamikaze-pilots.html


42 Responses to “Kamikaze Pilots Video”

  1. comment number 1 by: pacifist

    Yes, Kamikaze pilot was a symbol of the mad war. The pilots were almost boys, not fully grown ups, but they had to go because of their parents, brothers and sisters.
    If they didn’t, they and their relatives would be claimed as unpatriotic persons. So they had no ways…

    Their story is a real tragedy.
    A recent movie below is about them. Please look at this (although it is written in Japanese):

    http://moviessearch.yahoo.co.jp/detail/tymv/id324782/

    The original concept of the movie was made by Shintaro Ishihara. I don’t like him but I was surprised that he said in a tv interview that he hated Hideki Tojo because Tojo ordered many Japanese to kill themselves.

  2. comment number 2 by: GarlicBreath

    Pacifist, weren’t most of the kamikaze pilots college students? And from respectable families? This in part may explain why there were so few ethnic (under five, out of thousands) (Korean) chosun-kamikaze pilots. Here is some more information on one chosun kamikaze.

  3. comment number 3 by: Kaneganese

    I agree what ZERO says. I think Japanese leaders made a bad decision or didn’t make good decision, I would say. I also agree that we have to think of the victims who suffered in that war.
    But these day, I start thinking that the propaganda by both parties played a huge role for starting Sino-Japanese war and Pacific war. That is why I started to try to counterargue the distorted argument often made on Korean related blogs. I think Japanese need to speak up the propaganda in order to avoid another war in the future. We survived that war and now we are enjoyning the prosperity and democracy today because of all of them who sacrificed to protect my country, after all.

    Pacifist,

    I haven’t seen the movie yet, though I really want to. I wasn’t a big fan of Mr.Ishihara myself too, but he did a great job to reform Tokyo in some fields, say, the public educational system in Tokyo. If it wasn’t for him, I had to put my daughter in private school from primary school definately. Now, I have a choice to put her in a public high school to go to a better Uni. I don’t agree everything he says, but sometimes, we need a leader who has a will to change the old bad habits.

    By the way, one of my uncle was a apprentice of Kamikaze pilot(予科練 or 少年航空兵). He was 15 when he entered into the training. It was almost the end of the war, so he was lucky enough not to go on a plane to die. But as far as I heard from him, he was inspired by the speech made by his school senior and applied on soley volunteered bases. Nobody asked him and his mother, my grandmother even begged him not to go. I am not saying every Kamikaze pilots were willing to die, though.

    Garlic Breath,

    Unlike Army, there were not many ethnic Korean in Navy for the first place. It is said Japanese Emperial Navy didn’t have much faith in Taiwanese or Korean. In that sense, we can say that those few young Korean pilots must have been very talented and highly excellent people, I guess.

  4. comment number 4 by: Aki

    Kaneganese,

    My father also took the entrance examination of the school (予科練) hoping to become a Kamikaze pilot. But he could not enter the school since he was not able to pass the examination for the sense of equilibrium. As long as I heard from him, he tried to become a Kamikaze pilot voluntarily as your uncle.

    During the entrance examination, my father stayed in the home of his uncle who was an instructor of the school. The uncle had been a crew of the aircraft carrier Akagi that was sunk in the battle of Midway. After being rescued from the sea, he had become an instructor of the school. Ironically, during my father’s stay, he tried to persuade my father from attending the entrance examination. Surviving the real battlefields, he did not want to send his nephew into a desperate battle.

    My father was aware of the desperate situation of the war. But, at that time, no one could know what would happen to the nation if Japan lost the war. He just wanted to do something that he could do for the people around him.

  5. comment number 5 by: Jost

    The Tokkotai pilots are the unsung heroes of that tragic war. I have nothing but respect for them.

    While watching the Democratic candidates’ debate yesterday, it occured to me that American liberals hold immense respect for the U.S. military, whereas Japanese liberals positively despise the JSDF.

  6. comment number 6 by: dogbert

    Heroes, my ass! They were nothing more than the suicide bombers of their day. The Japanese then were terrorists, just as Al Qaeda is today. Any American who romanticizes them should have some sense slapped into him.

  7. comment number 7 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Dogbert,

    What would an American pilot have been called if he had crashed his plane into a Japanese carrier? And what would an American soldier have been called if he had jumped into a Japanese machine gun emplacement holding explosives to his chest? Would they have been called terrorists or heros?

    Fighting a battle is different from simply wanting to cause terror.

  8. comment number 8 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Dogbert,

    Also, the letters on Zero’s site do not give me the impression that the Kamikaze were suicidal maniacs, but were simply scared young men willing to die for their country and their loved ones.

  9. comment number 9 by: GarlicBreath

    It all comes down to targets. Blowing up a military target versus blowing up a civilian target. The kamikaze blew up military targets. It was the US that firebombed Tokyo and burned up women and children.

    What is acceptable, and known about war today is much different then what was acceptable and known during WWII. I doubt people in Ohio would be thrilled to see pictures of firebombing of Bagdad, and that is why the US uses “smart bombs”.

  10. comment number 10 by: dogbert

    They were terrorists.

    Japan was rapidly losing the ability to conduct warfare, fight battles, the way it had been and so turned to terror tactics. And to those who talk about “civilian targets”, let’s not forget that Japan was all about killing civilians, in China most notoriously, but Japan also attempted to do so in the U.S. via ballon-borne bombs.

    Did the U.S. pilots use kamikaze tactics? No, of course they didn’t.

    Japan at that time was just as bent on crippling the West as the Muslim extremists of today are.

  11. comment number 11 by: ponta

    I didn’t know Kamikaze pilot attacked civilians….where did you get the idea?

    And sure Japan attempted to kill civilians in the U.S. via balloon bombs, for that matter, via, atomic bombs, but she didn’t—-she failed;in contrast, the U.S. succeeded

    But I agree Japanese troop killed POW and civilians. That was horrible war crimes. But do you call them terrorists? They were war criminals but war-criminals are not always terrorists. Do you call the Americans soldiers who killed POW and civilians terrorists?

  12. comment number 12 by: General Tiger

    The Kamikaze are tragic…. forcing such young people on suicdie missions….
    Such is the madness of war. May it never happen again.

  13. comment number 13 by: pacifist

    From the internet dictionary (WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University), terrorism is against civilians.

    terrorism

    noun
    the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

    .
    So the usual battle in the war is not terrorism, and Kamikaze which attacked warships was not terrorism.

  14. comment number 14 by: General Tiger

    dogbert

    Did the U.S. pilots use kamikaze tactics? No, of course they didn’t.

    Remember Curtis LeMay? Or should I explain his role in WW2 and Korea?

  15. comment number 15 by: GarlicBreath

    Dogbert you are right. Japan did kill (murder) civilians in China and Japan was losing the war, and was desperate.

    I don’t think they were using “terror tactics”, although, I may not know exactly what you mean by that. Perhaps you can give me a definition. Does terror tactics mean reducing a nations will to fight by the indiscriminate killing (murder if you lose the war) of civilians?

    I would like to hear more about the comparison of Muslim extremists and WWII Japan. Do you think the underlying reasons for Japan and Muslim extremist wanting to cripple the west are the same? I think that there are very few similarities.

  16. comment number 16 by: James

    I hardly consider uniformed members of the Japanese military attacking uniformed and armed members of the American military to be terrorism. Japan had lost most of its experienced pilots by that point of the war, and the lacked the time or fuel to effectively train new pilots to take on the Americans using conventional tactics. It was an insane act of desperation to turn Japan’s remaining aircraft into guided missiles piloted by human beings, but it was not terrorism. At that point, I think that the Japanese leadership wasn’t as concerned with “crippling the West” as much as say, preventing the annihilation and occupation of their country, which was in the process of having all its major civilian population centers obliterated by American bombs.

  17. comment number 17 by: dogbert

    At that point, I think that the Japanese leadership wasn’t as concerned with “crippling the West” as much as say, preventing the annihilation and occupation of their country, which was in the process of having all its major civilian population centers obliterated by American bombs.

    Thereby learning that you shouldn’t start what you can’t finish.

  18. comment number 18 by: dogbert

    A “LeMay Bombing Leaflet” from the war, which warned Japanese civilians that “Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.”

    Did the Japanese give notice? No, they’re famous for the “sneak attack”.

    In violation of the rules of war shot-down B-29 aircrews were frequently tortured and executed when captured by both Japanese civilians and military. Also, the remaining Allied prisoners of war in Japan who had survived imprisonment to that time were frequently subjected to additional reprisals and torture after an air raid.

    Those were the type of people we were dealing with. The U.S. and its strong-willed allies, such as Australia, were right to do all they could to make sure that Japan would never again rise militarily.

    And look at the result — a prosperous Japan known for “Hello Kitty” rather than torture, rape, and murder. You should thank LeMay for that.

  19. comment number 19 by: General Tiger

    dogbert

    Did the Japanese give notice? No, they’re famous for the “sneak attack”.

    Nope, since
    1. Stupid translation was late, the original Japanese DoW was sent before the attack on Pearl Harbor
    2. The “Amerikans” (yes, this is a joke) didn’t thought that the “yellow monkeys” could fight a decent war.

    Those were the type of people we were dealing with. The U.S. and its strong-willed allies, such as Australia, were right to do all they could to make sure that Japan would never again rise militarily.

    The recent hate crimes on Muslims tells me that the US is no different. If the Japanese managed to firebomb New York, I would say that downed Japanese pilots would face worser fates.
    .
    Stop thinking the US was “moral” : every nation was a criminal in WW2.

  20. comment number 20 by: GarlicBreath

    I think all sides of WWII had suicide missions. (terror tactic?)But now suicide mission has taken a new dark meaning. In movies and military folklore the suicide mission was the classic heroic act.

  21. comment number 21 by: toadface

    Here is a classic example of how captured Allied Aircrew were treated in WWII.

    An excerpt from Lord Liverpoo’l’s “Knights of Bushido”

    A Diary Entry from a captured Japanese soldier:
    “Unit Commander Komai told us personally that in accordance with the compassionate sentiments of Japanese Bushido, he was going to kill the prisoner himself with his favorite sword. So we gathered to see this happen.

    I glance at the prisoner (an RAF ariman) as he sits in the truck, he looks at the hills and the sea and seems deep in thought. I feel a surge of pity and turn my eyes away.

    After we get off the truck Unit Commander Komai stands up and say to the prisoner, “We are going to kill you…” When the commander tells the prisoner that in accordance with Japanese Bushido he will be killed with a Japanese sword and we have a few minutes grace, he listens with a bowed head and says a few words in a low voice.

    The unit commander has drawn his favourite sword. It is the famous Osamure sword which he showed us at the observation post. It glitters in the light and sends a cold shiver down my spine. He taps the prisoner’s neck lightly with the back of the blade, then raises it above his head with both arms, and brings it down with a sweep…at that moment I closed my eyes.

    Shhh…it must be the sound of blood, spurting from the arteries. With a sound as though something had been cut the body falls forward. It was amazing…..he had killed him with one stroke. The onlookers crowd forward. The head detached from the trunk rolls in front of it. Shh…shh… the dark blood gushes out.

    All is over. The head is dead white, like a dolls. The savageness which I felt only a little while ago is gone and now I feel nothing but the true compassion of Japanese Bushido.

    A senior corporal laughs loudly and says…”Well, he will enter Nirvana now….!!”

    War is tragic. But after reading numerous personal accounts on the behavior of the Japanese military I have trouble mustering up sympathy for them.

  22. comment number 22 by: GarlicBreath

    Now that you got a lemay leaflet, where do you go?

    http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html

    Curtus LeMay admitted that he would have been a war criminal if the US had lost.

    Again, I point out that all sides committed war crimes.

    Curtis LeMay later said: “I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.” He felt, however, that his bombings were saving lives by encouraging Japan to surrender earlier.

  23. comment number 23 by: GarlicBreath

    Toady
    War is tragic. But after reading numerous personal accounts on the behavior of the Japanese military I have trouble mustering up sympathy for them.

    yes it is tragic, I have a book for you to read. I am sure after reading the numerous personal accounts of the behavior of the Korean military you will likewise have little sympathy for Koreans. On the otherhand…. if you just have an axe to grind against japan, I think you will ignore Korean atrocities.

  24. comment number 24 by: Gerry-Bevers

    The firebombing of Japanese cities was essentially a terror campaign designed to break the will of the Japanese people. It was indiscriminate and almost certainly a war crime.

    Who were the allied pilots who were beheaded? Had they bombed civilian or military targets?

  25. comment number 25 by: pacifist

    My mother was a nurse of Japan red cross in the war time and she once told me that when she was working in a hospital ship that were carrying wounded soldiers some American airplanes attacked the ship. The ship didn’t sink so she survived.
    .
    Basically the hospital ships are protected by international law but these injustices were sometimes committed during the war time.
    (The same happened against the hospital train in the novel “Far From Bamboo Grove”.)
    .
    BTW, my mother was staying at a town near Hiroshima when the A-bomb was exploded. After that she engaged in nursing the victims. So I had a chance to hear how it was like. It was a kind of holocaust, many children, women, olds were burned in a second. Some were evaporated in an instant only leaving a stain that looked like a shadow there.

  26. comment number 26 by: James

    The basic idea I’m getting from dogbert/toadface is that horrible acts by the Japanese military in Asia against civilians and POW’s somehow makes our side morally-justified in the horrible acts we committed against the Japanese civilian population. Was burning to death hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with firebombs necessary to end Japanese aggression in Asia and force their unconditional surrender? Possibly. But the fact that our nation may have slaughtered civilians partially in the name of ending the slaughter of other civilians doesn’t negate the fact that the American military deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Two wrongs do not make a right.

  27. comment number 27 by: bad_moon_rising

    Kamikaze planes are nothing more than manned cruise missiles. All cruise missiles use small wings to generate lift, and maneuver just as an aircraft does. Most actually use control surfaces. Why then should it matter whether the cruise missile is manned or unmanned except to the pilot in the plane. If attacking the target with an unmanned cruise missile is justified, then it shouldn’t matter whether the plane or missile (i.e. Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka) is manned or unmanned (i.e. BGM-109 Tomahawk). If we look just at efficiency, the manned cruise missile had a fairly high kill ratio.

    From October 24 through November 1, 1944, Kamikaze attacks off Leyte in the Philippines sank one escort carrier, one destroyer, and an ocean-going tug, while damaging two fleet carriers, one light carrier, seven escort carriers, one light cruiser, and three destroyers, at an expenditure of 51 Kamikaze aircraft and 15 escorting fighters.

    Compare that with the one way “suicide” mission of the battleship Yamato. The Yamato was sunk before coming into contact with a single enemy ship and only 280 of the Yamato’s 2,778-man crew survived while inflicting no damage to the enemy.

    Any commander looking at those sorts of numbers would opt for Kamikaze attack because it clearly saves more lives while inflicting more damage to the enemy.

    The word “fanaticism” gets bandied about but that argument holds little sway. If “choosing” to die during a war, otherwise known as laying down your life for your buddies, is an act of fanaticism, then the man “choosing” to jump on a grenade to save fellow soldiers is just as fanatical as the man who “chooses” to jump on a destroyer with his aircraft to save fellow soldiers in the rear. One man neutralizes the granade, the other man the destroyer.

    These kinds of decisions are still made by soldiers today.

    On April 14, 2004, Corporal Dunham heroically saved the lives of two of his fellow Marines by jumping on a grenade during an ambush in the town of Karabilah.

    When a nearby Marine convoy was ambushed, Corporal Dunham led his squad to the site of the attack, where he and his men stopped a convoy of cars trying to make an escape. As he moved to search one of the vehicles, an insurgent jumped out and grabbed the corporal by the throat.

    The corporal engaged the enemy in hand-to-hand combat. At one point, he shouted to his fellow Marines, “No! No! No! Watch his hand!”

    Moments later, an enemy grenade rolled out and Corporal Dunham jumped on the grenade to protect his fellow Marines, using his helmet and body to absorb the blast. Corporal Dunham succumbed to his wounds on April 22, 2004.

    Is that an act of heroism or fanaticism? Even during biblical times there were acts of self sacrifice. Take the story of Samson.

    “Then Samson prayed to the Lord, ‘O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for one of my two eyes.’ (Judges 16:28).” “Samson said, ‘Let me die with the Philistines!’ Down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more as he died than while he lived.” (Judges 16:30).

    If the dead hero is venerated in Japanese culture so too is it celebrated in Western culture. English literature is replete with works extolling the virtues of a valiant death.

    “Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once.” William Shakespeare

    I think the only personal lesson one can take away from all this is don’t be a dead hero.

  28. comment number 28 by: dogbert

    James, I don’t know you, but I assume you are not Japanese.

    Gerry, I know you’re an American.

    If you were alive in the early 1940s, which side would you have been on?

    Would you have been in the streets protesting the conduct of the U.S. military in Japan?

    I am disturbed to see American apologetics for the way our military waged war when the very survival of our nation was at stake.

    General Tiger, you are just displaying kyopo logic, so I really have no response.

  29. comment number 29 by: dogbert

    Now that you got a lemay leaflet, where do you go?

    http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html

    Curtus LeMay admitted that he would have been a war criminal if the US had lost.

    Again, I point out that all sides committed war crimes.

    Yes, he said that and he was most likely right.

    For that matter, President Roosevelt could have been tried as a war criminal in Japan as well.

    Yet, he remains one of our most beloved leaders.

    I don’t argue that the U.S. did not commit errors during the war, but I do believe (a) they were nothing in comparison to what the Japanese did; and (b) had Japan not started the war, there would have been no war (in the Pacific) and no opportunity for the U.S. to have committed “war crimes”.

    I don’t enjoy arguing with you, Garlic Breath, as I usually agree with you, but I am a patriotic American and I do think that our nation was justified in fighting as hard as it did against Japan in WWII. That’s all I’m saying.

  30. comment number 30 by: dogbert

    That said, following our benevolent occupation and reconstruction of Japan, together with the re-education of the Japanese, we have been rewarded today with a steadfast and loyal ally deserving of our respect and friendship.

  31. comment number 31 by: pacifist

    There is a proverb in Japan “勝てば官軍” (If one party defeated the other, they are the government army) from the history that after the battle with the Shogunate, feudal clans from country side won in the end and established Meiji government. So it means “Might makes right”.
    .
    Just imagine, if the allies were defeated by German-Italian power, Hitler’s evel deeds would be hidden forever and some other horrible acts by allied nations would be surfaced. But the allied nations won actually, so naturally horrible acts by them remained unclaimed.

  32. comment number 32 by: GarlicBreath

    I don’t argue that the U.S. did not commit errors during the war, but I do believe (a) they were nothing in comparison to what the Japanese did; and (b)

    My point is that all sides committed “war crimes”, but the US side was definitely worse in terms of numbers of “innocent” civilians killed as a direct result of military action. In my opinion I think the whole issue of “war crimes” is victors justice.

    had Japan not started the war, there would have been no war (in the Pacific) and no opportunity for the U.S. to have committed “war crimes”.

    Yes that is true, Japan started the war if you call Pearl harbor the start of the war (Pacific side), which I do. But the US cut off 95% of her fuel. I am pretty sure that the USA would go to war for the same reason.

    I don’t enjoy arguing with you, Garlic Breath, as I usually agree with you,

    Thanks, I don’t think of this as an argument. Just a difference of opinions.

    but I am a patriotic American and I do think that our nation was justified in fighting as hard as it did against Japan in WWII. That’s all I’m saying.

    I agree, America did what it felt was necessary and but history has not judged the USA through the same lense as how the Japanese are judged.

    Don’t you think that Americans who think that the war on terror in Iraq and Afgan, is total BS and who support a withdrawal etc are patriotic Americans. I think people who support your position are patriotic and people who disagree with your position are patriotic.

  33. comment number 33 by: Kaneganese

    That said, following our benevolent occupation and reconstruction of Japan, together with the re-education of the Japanese, we have been rewarded today with a steadfast and loyal ally deserving of our respect and friendship.

    I don’t think U.S. occupation was horrible at all, but everything was not that “benevolent” as you may think it was. Off course most soldiers of Allied Forces were law-abiding people, but there were lots of crimes committed by those soldiers, though those informatin was controlled and not many of them was reported. And unlike other occupied countries, most Japanese tend not to talk against U.S. because it is not practical. They put all the energy into reconstructing the country, not getting rid of occupier or struggling for the power.
    And you have to remember that the extremely pro-America Japanese conservatives were the one who felt betrayed most through the confort women bill frenzy in U.S. last few months. I think if you are really patriotic and don’t want to lose one of the most loyal ally of your country today and create another anti-American country in East Asia, it might be really nice of you to stop comparing who used to be the most horrible person more than 60 years ago.

    But honestly, I think we were lucky to have U.S., Australia etc for occupier rather than Soviet Union or Chinese. And also, I sincerely want to thank all the “good” deeds U.S. did to reconstruct Japan, especially the citizens who sent skim milks to my mother who was practically collecting and eating weeds( not that “weeds”) to survive during the war and who had survived Tokyo carpet bombing. And I was really relieved to read many American who know Asia very well and even a young Korean are actually trying to see what happened back then fairly.

  34. comment number 34 by: James

    I am disturbed to see American apologetics for the way our military waged war when the very survival of our nation was at stake.

    I’d like to think that 60 years after the end of the war, we as Americans can see past the propaganda of that time and realize that our country did not firebomb and nuke Japanese population centers for our “very survival.” Even if one were to make the case that we were driven to fight the war for survival, the heavy bombing of Japanese civilians came at a phase of the war in which the Japanese were already clearly losing.

    I don’t argue that the U.S. did not commit errors during the war, but I do believe (a) they were nothing in comparison to what the Japanese did

    Even if such brutality was necessary to make the Japanese surrender unconditionally, you can’t write off the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians killed by American bombing as “nothing” simply because you feel the Japanese military killed a considerably larger number of civilian deaths.

    This isn’t about whether one should have supported America’s war against Japan, it’s about the question of viewing past events fairly. If you want to ridiculously stretch the definition of terrorism to include kamikaze pilot attacks on the U.S. fleet, surely America’s firebombing of Japan would also fall under such a broad definition.

  35. comment number 35 by: ponta

    Roosevelt remains one of our most beloved leaders for sure, but Henry Kissinger wrote in his book “Diplomacy
    ,

    “Roosevelt must have been aware that there was no possibility that Japan would accept (the Hull Note). America’s participation in the war was the great achievements made through the extraordinary efforts of a great and courageous leader.”

    And had Japan not attacked the United States,

    “his job would have become more complicated. But in view of his ethical and strategic convictions, it was almost certain that he decided to let America participate in the war, deeming it as indispensable for the future of freedom and the safety of America.

    If I were living in 40’s in U.S, I would wholeheartedly supported Roosevelt. For that matter, if I were living in Japan, I might have supported Tojou.
    More than 60 years having passed, I can see Japanese leaders had made wrong decisions, neglecting the suffering of Asian people and Japanese people. But history is not as simple as both countries during the war time wanted people to believe.

  36. comment number 36 by: Ken

    Australian army is said to have courteously burried the body of the 1st suicide bomber to Sydney port at the beginning of WW2.
    Brave soldier knows ‘Brave heart’ even of enemy.
    Profaning the dead who died for those who were left in the fatherland in battle field is not allowed even though it was for wrong political decision.
    Above words by Gerry would make the Kamikaze pilos turn in their graves.
    The USA has comitted war crimes but apprently fewer than the USSR and PROC.
    It would be because there are many rational guys like Gerry though here is also a pathetic American even in this topic.
    Anyway, I shudder at thinking if the USSR got global hegemony and if PROC does so near future.

  37. comment number 37 by: General Tiger

    dogbert:

    I am disturbed to see American apologetics for the way our military waged war when the very survival of our nation was at stake.

    Actually, if the US had just gave up on the Western Pacific, there might have been no war. But then, that’ll be alternative history. One thing was sure: the survival of the US wasn’t at stake, unless you’re talking about the economic collapse that would have come if the free market system was destroyed.

    General Tiger, you are just displaying kyopo logic, so I really have no response.

    Given that I’m currently living in Korea, can you tell me what this “Kyopo Logic” is?
    .
    My view of the war: Both sides committed crimes. Saying that only one side is evil like the pot calling the cattle black.

  38. comment number 38 by: kteen

    It’s disgusting to see kamikaze pilots being hailed as heroes and martyrs when they did nothing better than what the Al-Queda is doing nowadays.

  39. comment number 39 by: Ken

    It is reported that former President of Taiwan worshipped his deceased brother at Yasukuni shrine and appreciated the deifying him for 60 years.
    Even non-Yasukuni worshipper gets fond of Taiwan.
    On the other hand, what about the other race who volunteered for service more enthusiastically as Japan army?

  40. comment number 40 by: GarlicBreath

    On the other hand, what about the other race who volunteered for service more enthusiastically as Japan army?

    That other race .. some, not enough, were convicted war criminals. Some, not enough, were hung for their crimes.

    Now they are being worshiped like heroes. Its disgusting.

  41. comment number 41 by: straycat

    Although, I usually agrees with dogbert, this time is not.

    What makes me laughing is that you (claiming an American patriot) and kyopos are repeating the same logic with the leftist in Japan.

  42. comment number 42 by: egg

    kteen
    I think there is a great difference between attacking citizens and soldiers. Where do you find the similarity between the pilots and the Al-Queda members?
    Is the guilt of killing armless citizens and full armed soldiers the same to you? Or is it not important to you?
    If you think like the above I will say nothing. There will be a such position logicaly, though I cannot take that myself.
    If not, I feel that you are using double standards and intentionaly insulting the pilots.

    It’s disgusting to

    hear what you are claiming.