Talk:Kamikaze

There is confusion in this article about what "Kamikaze" means. There is a narrow Japanese interpretation and a broad, perhaps overly broad, Western interpretation.
I am months late in returning to this subject.

I am still concerned that the first sentence of the article makes the word "kamikaze" synonymous with all manner of "special attack" and the machines, people and units that made special attacks. That is a Western perception, but not necessarily accurate. It also seems to tie the word only to the units (tai) that executed them. That would be too narrow.

Regarding "special attack" (aka tokubetsu kougeki), in forty years of reading about this, I have not found a perfect Japanese definition for "special attack" in the context of World War Two. The idea is an attack that is so bold and dangerous that it will almost certainly result in the death of the pilot, submariner, boatman, infantryman, etc. who makes that attack. The people who performed special attack missions understood in advance that they would probably be one-way missions, and for the vast majority of them, the mission was indeed fatal to the attackers.

The word "kamikaze", however, has two rather different interpretations in the context of World War Two. Westerners take it to mean various things, leaning towards any sort of special attack. However, the Japanese lexicon assigns a narrower meaning and makes it a subset of "special attack". In this view, it is a particular group of Japanese naval air operations that were special attacks that were ordered in the Fourth Quarter of 1944 and 1945. In this narrower interpretation, "kamikaze" missions were strictly naval air operations for air-to-surface attack. To describe the units that performed them, the Japanese sometimes call them "Kamikaze Tokubetsu Kougekitai" (Divine Wind Special Attack Units). The Japanese did not call the numerous one-way missions of Japanese army aircraft for air-to-surface attack "kamikaze", but did call them "special attack" (tokubetsu kougeki).

I think you need to divide this article into paragraphs explaining the two interpretations of "kamikaze" that relate to World War Two, and delete the "tai" ending in your definition, because that refers to the units. Furthermore, you may want to delete the photo of a takeoff of army planes at Chiran, Kyushu, because "kamikaze" is not a word for army special attack under the narrower Japanese interpretation used during the war.Kabocha (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Recruitment
in the recruitment section it is told that there were many volunteers for pilots of these planes. However, there doesnt seem to be a good source. Both sources are not check-able and leave very little information. I highly doubt that these people were so exited (yes, excited, that is what this section describes) to die at what must have seemed to be the end of a losing war. I would like to see some better sources, at least some that i can check. There is a brief description of a modern japanese writer that is a good counterpoint, but is very short compared to what is mentioned previous to its entry. Also, it is documented a lot better. This part is very one-sided, and seems to be the case of someone injecting a political or social agenda into this article. This type of thing is cancer to this website. MORE SOURCES for this description of highly unusual behavior. (this aspect of kamikaze bombing is, to me, the most interesting part about it. I am disappointed there is not more information.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.57.118.93 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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"? &mdash; 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)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * USS Bunker Hill hit by two Kamikazes.jpg