Talk:Banzai charge

The Term
I thought the term "Banzai charge" is a rather crude term to describe the Samurai version of "last stand". Neither does it properly reflect the noble intent or the culture background of the concept, or the poetic effect of the actual term in Japanese.

In the link to Chinese and Japanes version, the article title was "Giyoku Sai", which translates to "Shattered Jade". It is a term quoted from a Chinese Tang-Dynasty History book (I cannot find the translated name of the book). The original phrase can be roughly translated to "A noble man would rather die as shattered jade, than to live like brick as whole." Samurai used this passage as a analogy for ultimate sacrifice, to make a last stand in hopeless situation and fight to the last man. Japanese media used this term in WWII for annoucing platoons that has made a last stand and was annilated.

I think maybe a change in the title and some content of the article would make this article more reflective to the concept and its cultural roots. I believe the title "Gyokusai" would be more appropriate for the article. We can include the "Banzai Charge" as the term used by western nation (since it originated from observing the Japanese warcry during suicide charge). Personally, I won't make any immediate change to the article yet, instead I'll wait for any response/suggestions from the watchlist. Maximilius

I agree - it does sound a bit crude. In reading this article, it's clear that the term "Banzai charge" is a Western concept, yet this is readily acknowledged under the "Etymology" heading. I'd prefer having this article be rerouted to the original meaning.

Erikkukun 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * the poetic effect... you japanophile kids, i don't see the poetry of a suicide attack, i'm sure you won't see the palestinian kamikaze as poets nor the september 11 as a cute act of poetry do you. Cliché Online (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?
I take issue with the statement "In hindsight, such an act of heroism is worth crediting but at the same time, it is also viewed as a terrible waste of soldiers and a highly ineffective way of manpower management during wartime." The first part especially seems based entirely in opinion. -Elmer Clark 03:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The author doesn't mention a valuable point about banzai charges in that not all of them were for the same purpose. Some banzai charges were meant as acts of mass suicide. But, some were just straightforward frontal assaults that weren't meant to result in the deaths of everyone in the attacking force. However, the Allies, especially the Americans, frequently grouped all of these incidents under the heading of "banzai charges."


 * Others noted the article appeared translated from the Japanese. My father described that in the aftermath of a true Banzai attack, they found the soldiers had no rations or spare ammunition on their persons and the goal was death before dishonor. Bayonets and grenade launching blanks (wooden bullets) were used in Banzai attacks. There were other mass attacks that failed but the soldiers were well supplied and it seemed victory was their goal. --Naaman Brown (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe this is correct. A banzai charge was conducted by desperate men for the express purpose of achieving an honorable death on the battlefield -- there was no real expectation of victory. It was "suicide by Marine." --Yaush (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Naval Equivelant? Battle of Surigao Strait?
The final sortie of the Yamato and her escorts off Okinawa could be viewed as a seaborne equivalent, although it could also be argued that a closer naval equivalent was the battleships Fusō and Yamashiro assaulting a line of Allied battleships and cruisers during the Battle of Surigao Strait. Staygyro (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But the Surigao Strait action was an encounter for the Japanese. The Southern force didnt expect to meet the Americans in the way they did, they just blundered into the jaws of Admiral Kinkaid, not in the way Shoji Nishimura expected the battle to turn out at all, so I don't think it should be mentioned here as a Banzai Charge. Staygyro (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The aim of a (true) Banzai attack was to die fighting honorably rather than accept the shame of surrender. Most historical sources seem to indicate that the sorties of Yamato at Okinawa and of the Southern Force at Surigao were intended to end in victory.

I too once thought the final sortie of Yamato was a planned suicide mission; however, the claim that Yamato carried only enough fuel for a one-way trip to Okinawa appears now to be a myth: according to navy history buffs who checked extant Japanese records, she carried enough fuel to reach Okinawa and to return home with ample fuel for battle maneveurs. While the worst case scenario was to beach herself as an unsinkable armored artillery battery at Okinawa, if she and escorts had successfully engaged and destroyed enough ships to end the invasion, (the new theory goes) she would have been saved to fight again and the intent was not sacrifice.

The Japanese plan for the overall Battle of Leyte Gulf was that the decoy Northern Force would lure Halsey's Third Fleet away from San Bernadino Strait, so the Kurita's Center Force could meet up with Nishimura's Southern Force at Leyte Gulf at dawn, combine forces, destroy Kinkaid's Seventh Fleet and then slaughter the Allied invasion force. The sequence of events leading to the pre-dawn Battle of Surigao Strait between Nishimura's force facing alone all of Kincaid's battleships was a fog-of-war accident, not a planned suicide mission but a planned victory that turned suicidal. --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Translation for consistency?
In the intro it says this:
 * The name Gyokusai (Japanese: 玉砕, honourable suicide; literally "jade shards") [...]

But in the Etymology section that follows it says this:
 * Gyokusai (玉砕?), literally "shattered jewel" [...]

Which is correct? I hope someone can correct this for consistency. -- B.Rossow ·  talk  14:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonomicon?
Are we really using fiction as reference now? Christ, wikipedia, you keep shooting yourself in the gnads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.77.87 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV problem: too judgmental
This article seems to describe the Japanese powers that be (or were) at the time as pretty Machiavellian. This seems to peak with "...that was later misused by Japanese military governments." Is this necessary? Filling in all those "citation needed"s might be the answer. AngusCA (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad translation
Looks like someone edited this with a large quantity of text translated from Japanese. Someone with knowledge of the historical background needs to edit it for readability, because right now it's a soup of Engrish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.250.188 (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Improper photo
Why is there a photo of the aftermath of a kamikaze attack on the Bunker Hill? The article is about Banzai charges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.48.7 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

bayonet charges
Banzai charge is a bayonet attack. They were commonly used until the 20th century and even then they were used in the Israeli war of independence and the Korean war successfully. BernardZ (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. Geo Swan (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Original research
This article looks like a bunch of WP:Original research, and should be rewritten -- with references Geo Swan (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Problematic IP Address User: Disruptive editing
Hello, WP contributors, , and. Thanks for reverting the disruptive edits of IP Address user 73.170.255.4. I would like to ask for your assistance in reporting this IP Address user to an admin. A soft block may stop this behavior. Please relay this information to any admin you know as I do not know any. Thanks, guys. A21NX (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)