Talk:Kamikaze

Confusing sentence

The article states that:

at Midway in June 1942, the Japanese lost as many air crew in a single day as their pre-war training program had lost in a year.

Should this be "... their pre-war training program had created in a year"? —BillC ^talk 09:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is confusing, and it may not be correct. A few pages of the cited source are online, and the loss of Japanese pilots is less than would be expected, but many more of the supporting crew were also lost. I did not find support for the assertion in the online text, and therefore will remove it. I have ordered the book and should have it in a few weeks, and will revise the article then if needed. (The book does make an important point: The loss of Japanese pilots at Midway was less than the number lost in the war of attrition in the Solomon Islands.)

The Peattie does not have a full citation in the two footnotes which mention it, nor it is in the bibliography. Once I have the book I will correct that. Kablammo (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Outdated aircraft

The claim is technically false. The Ki-84 and Shiden were just as good as anything the Allies had. The DY4 was one of the fastest strike aircraft in the Pacific, if not the fastest. The "Kate" was no snail either. Please cite and fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:4A7F:5613:0:0:3DDC:B4AE (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Response I'd say the statement is generally true more than 'technically false'. Yes, the Japanese had developed aircraft as good as anything else in the skies. The problem for them was that by the later war they couldn't produce them in any kind of number - they lacked raw materials, tools, etc. It was much cheaper to patch up old planes, fuel 'em up for a one-way trip and sayonara. I do agree that the statement could be qualified. RobotBoy66 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The Japanese air fleet was outdated in secondary ways. Even if we disregard these (which I won’t call inherently unfair), the fact that the Japanese had comparable design prototypes is irrelevant bc these never entered mass production and pretty much none ever even saw effective combat. It is a historical fact that the Japanese air fleet in being had fallen far behind the allies technologically and this situation did contribute significantly to the decision to implement/expand the Kamikaze program.

OgamD218 (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m gonna remove it bc there doesn’t seem to be much remaining disagreement plus the account that started this got blocked. OgamD218 (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

replace the first image

The first image, used for the page's thumbnail thingy, is not the best representation of a kamikaze. It just shows a carrier on fire - only when the context that the carrier got hit by a kamikaze does it make sense. I think we should replace it with a better image, a few of which are actually in the article. The "better image" should show the plane about to kamikaze.

For example we could use:

• File:Kamikaze attacks USS Columbia (CL-56) in Lingayen Gulf on 6 January 1945 (NH 79449).jpg
• File:Kamikaze attacks USS White Plains (CVE-66) on 25 October 1944 (80-G-288882).jpg
• File:Kamikaze zero.jpg
• File:USS Intrepid CV-11 kamikaze strike.jpg

Poopykibble (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think the existing images can be retained under a new first image, but I would reverse them, putting the pilots ahead of the damage they caused. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Found colorized footage filmed by naval personnel during a battle which looks suitable.

Direct Kamikaze suicide-aircraft strike against US Naval vessel, resulting in visible damage.

Paraxade13 (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)—  Blocked sockpuppet of NotLessOrEqual, see investigation. Belbury (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Where did you find this footage? I have deleted it from the article pending proper citation. Skylarke41 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Image information on its associated Wikimedia Commons page cites source from United States Department of the Navy, restoring. Colimarl (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)—  Blocked sockpuppet of NotLessOrEqual, see investigation. Belbury (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• USS Bunker Hill hit by two Kamikazes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Kamikaze video -- burial of Japanese pilot aboard USS Missouri April 1945

Hi: Migth someone be able to add this very informative video to the "Films" section? Title: "Why did the US Navy Hold a Funeral for a Kamikaze?" 15 mins. video at https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/peopleandplaces/why-did-the-us-navy-hold-a-funeral-for-a-kamikaze/vi-AA1u4KVc?ocid=nl_article_link BillGarrisonJr (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Kamikadze often georgian surname in Kaukaz 176.65.118.2 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Psychological effects

I was looking up this page to see what the psychological effects of a kamikaze-squat were, but didn’t find any information on this. Like for the soldiers and the people of Japan, or worldwide. Did it make suicide in general more acceptable? Did it help the allies see the Japanese soldiers more as robots? Did it make the Japanese see themselves as disposible? How are elder Japanese people talking about this years after the war? Can we see this have an impact on the way people nowadays engage with their jobs? (You don’t need to enjoy/care for your jov, just do your duty and it’s okay if you kill yourself because of burnout.) or does it tell something about suicide-rates in Japan nowadays? Did it make the allies feel more gored out or powerless like they are fighting against zombies wgo are allready dead?

It would be very nice to have an answer to these types of questions. Now the “Effect” chapter only talks about the specific strategic-military effects, but there are many more effects we could talk about. For me the psychological effects are more important, as they could have a lasting impact. ~2026-14438-91 (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

"just do your duty and it’s okay if you kill yourself" Redundant. As pointed out in the lead, killing yourself in the name of loyalty was already a key part of Japanese culture: "A tradition of death instead of defeat, capture, and shame was deeply entrenched in Japanese military culture; one of the primary values in the samurai way of life and the Bushido code was loyalty and honor until death." ... "In 1890, the Imperial Rescript on Education was passed, under which students were required to ritually recite its oath to offer themselves "courageously to the state" as well as protect the Imperial family. The ultimate offering was to give up one's life. It was an honour to die for Japan and the Emperor. Axell and Kase pointed out: "The fact is that innumerable soldiers, sailors and pilots were determined to die, to become eirei, that is 'guardian spirits' of the country. ... Many Japanese felt that to be enshrined at Yasukuni was a special honour because the Emperor visited the shrine to pay homage twice a year. Yasukuni is the only shrine deifying common men which the Emperor would visit to pay his respects." Young Japanese people were indoctrinated from an early age with these ideals." Basically the Japanese equivalent to an old Roman motto: Semper fidelis ( "always faithful", "always loyal"). Loyalty until death, never betraying your country. Dimadick (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)