For Those We Love - Kamikaze Tokkotai

[Yeager]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKLLRx7xaVI

Not sure if this has been linked before.  Nicely done.

[Krusty]

I would agree only in that the graphcis are very very VERY nicely done.

The video itself?

Claptrap rubbish, glorifying kamikazee pilots as brave and noble, when most were scared and indoctrinated with barely the training to fly a plane in formation.

There's a new wave of this type of revisionist history going around, and IMO it's the worst of the lot. The guy who made that should get a job with Al Jazeera reporting on suicide bombers in the mideast. Same difference.

[soda72]

I would agree only in that the graphcis are very very VERY nicely done.

The video itself?

Claptrap rubbish, glorifying kamikazee pilots as brave and noble, when most were scared and indoctrinated with barely the training to fly a plane in formation.

There's a new wave of this type of revisionist history going around, and IMO it's the worst of the lot. The guy who made that should get a job with Al Jazeera reporting on suicide bombers in the mideast. Same difference.

+1

[Ack-Ack]

I would agree only in that the graphcis are very very VERY nicely done.

The video itself?

Claptrap rubbish, glorifying kamikazee pilots as brave and noble, when most were scared and indoctrinated with barely the training to fly a plane in formation.

There's a new wave of this type of revisionist history going around, and IMO it's the worst of the lot. The guy who made that should get a job with Al Jazeera reporting on suicide bombers in the mideast. Same difference.

It's obvious you've never seen the movie at all other than that YouTube clip.  The movie does not 'glorify' kamikaze pilots at all, nor does it revise history.  It's a story of a group of young kamikaze pilots told from the point of view of an elderly woman that owned a restaurant next to the airbase.  She got to know these young men as they would spend time at her restaurant.  The story shows how they were scared, indoctrinated and how it touched the lives of their family, the elderly restaurant owner and others near the base.  It's actually a good movie and if you can manage to find a Region 1 DVD of the movie, get it immediately.  There is also a book but it's even harder to find than the Region 1 DVD.

ack-ack

[Mace2004]

While I have not seen the movie, I don't see anything particularly "revisionist" about the clip.  While the Kamikaze were rightfully hated by the US I don't think you can equate the pilots with suicide bombers.  Kamikaze targeted US sailors while suicide bombers are specifically used to target innocent civilians which is a huge difference.  The Kamikaze were hated because they were effective, suicide bombers are hated because they're immoral.

Krusty makes a legitimate point that many were forced into the Kamikaze mission.  I have read well documented history books which describe the practice of bolting canopies closed and building aircraft with drop away landing gear to prevent the honorable pilot from making a less than "honorable" choice but this evidence is limited, there is little doubt that many, if not most, volunteered.  There were both cultural (honorable death) as well as propaganda (Americans will eat you) aspects to this but, when you see your country devastated as Japan was in the later half of the war, it's hard to argue against such personal sacrifice in it's defense.  

Of course, not having seen the rest of the movie I have to take Ack-Ack's word on its overall portrayal of the Kamikaze.  If, as Krusty thinks, it is revisionist by doing something like claiming the Kamikaze were actually winning the war for Japan until those dastardly Americans nuked them then that would be wrong but portraying the pilots as human beings who believed what they were doing was right is altogether different (even if the cause was already lost).  

Of the "revisionist" movies out there one of the most inexcusable is "Pearl Harbor" in which the Japanese attack on the US was presented as a legitimate Japanese response to the US embargo as if the US just decided to do this to hurt Japan for no particular reason.  The Japanese invaded Manchuria and Korea in 1931 and China itself in 1937 but the fact that Japan had already been waging a vicious imperialist war for 10 years and that the embargo was in response to what Japan started doesn't seem important enough to mention.  It's sort of like suggesting that the war in Europe began when the imperialist US and Brits attacked Normandy where the peace loving Germanic people were vacationing on the French shore.

[danny76]

While I have not seen the movie, I don't see anything particularly "revisionist" about the clip.  While the Kamikaze were rightfully hated by the US I don't think you can equate the pilots with suicide bombers.  Kamikaze targeted US sailors while suicide bombers are specifically used to target innocent civilians which is a huge difference.  The Kamikaze were hated because they were effective, suicide bombers are hated because they're immoral.

Krusty makes a legitimate point that many were forced into the Kamikaze mission.  I have read well documented history books which describe the practice of bolting canopies closed and building aircraft with drop away landing gear to prevent the honorable pilot from making a less than "honorable" choice but this evidence is limited, there is little doubt that many, if not most, volunteered.  There were both cultural (honorable death) as well as propaganda (Americans will eat you) aspects to this but, when you see your country devastated as Japan was in the later half of the war, it's hard to argue against such personal sacrifice in it's defense.  

Of course, not having seen the rest of the movie I have to take Ack-Ack's word on its overall portrayal of the Kamikaze.  If, as Krusty thinks, it is revisionist by doing something like claiming the Kamikaze were actually winning the war for Japan until those dastardly Americans nuked them then that would be wrong but portraying the pilots as human beings who believed what they were doing was right is altogether different (even if the cause was already lost).  

Of the "revisionist" movies out there one of the most inexcusable is "Pearl Harbor" in which the Japanese attack on the US was presented as a legitimate Japanese response to the US embargo as if the US just decided to do this to hurt Japan for no particular reason.  The Japanese invaded Manchuria and Korea in 1931 and China itself in 1937 but the fact that Japan had already been waging a vicious imperialist war for 10 years and that the embargo was in response to what Japan started doesn't seem important enough to mention.  It's sort of like suggesting that the war in Europe began when the imperialist US and Brits attacked Normandy where the peace loving Germanic people were vacationing on the French shore.

In many instances kamikaze pilots were clamouring for the position. When Yamamoto requested kamikaze pilots from his 1st and 3rd air wing he received 5 times the replies for the places available. Only yesterday I watched a documentary about this very subject on Discovery. One of the contributors was an old japanese pilot who had carried out repeated operations but was told not to waste his life fruitlessly and he returned in his aircraft several times when unable to find a target. The guy was in tears because he felt as though he had disgraced himself by not dying for his country. As for building explosive aircraft with drop away landing gear, making it virtually impossible to return to your airfield alive, look no further than the Me163b