Thanks for your inputs, gentlemen.
But Kamikaze attacks have no comparisson to suicide bombers or 9/11 attacks.
A Japanese pilot was a trained man from his country's military who deliberately killed himself by crashing a military aircraft against an enemy military target in order to reduce or neutralise the enemy's strategic and tactical advantages in the battle field in the middle of an open, total declared war.
A religious fanatic who hi-jacks a civilian commercial plane full of civilians and crashes it against a civil building full of civilians in order to kill them and terrorise a whole nation…
Can both be compared? NO, NO and NO.
Kamikazes were a resource highly-criticised within the Imperial High Command and it was originally intended as small units to be used to neutralise American carriers during 'Operation Sho' in October 1944. By that time, the Japanese air forces were outmatched in number and quality by the Americans, thus making conventional attacks suicide for the pilots and useless for the war effort. Kamikaze attacks were so successful in the Philippines campaign that the Imperial High Command realised that Special Attacks were the only possible tactic with any chance of success they had at the time, and that's why they generalised it.
During the campaign at Okinawa, US Navy commanders seriously considered the withdrawal because the naval losses they were having because of Kamikaze attacks were unbearable —1/5 of the attacking force was put out of action by Kamikaze attacks.
Here are some cyphers:
Philippines, October 20th 1944 - January 20th 1945
Kamikaze attacks: 424
US Navy losses: 16 ships sunk, 87 damaged
Okinawa, April 1st 1945 - June 23rd 1945
Kamikaze attacks: 1.915
US Navy losses: 36 ships sunk, 368 damaged, 5.000 KIA, 4.800 WIA.
__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars
"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun
|