Hi All, The little that I have read regarding the Japanese code of "Bushido" seems to imply that it was a definite strategic advantage to Japan. But I've been wondering! The Japanese lost many good men from the lowly grunt in the field to highly rated Generals and Admirals. Valuable pilots were lost since the Japanese pilots did not use parachutes and little emphasis was placed on rescue. Soldiers were encouraged, if not forced, to fight to the death or commit suicide. I'm wondering if all of this unnecessary lost of manpower was really a strategic advantage to the allies rather than to the Japanese? Thanks in advance. Bob Guercio
i guess you'll never understand unless you're one. just to add my inputs, a bushi never chooses an easy death. that goes against the code, or so it is written. rather, one chooses a worthwhile death. how you decide that, i can't help you. i suppose one airplane with one pilot sinking an enemy ship qualifies. and an army as modern as the japanese in ww2 couldn't structure all of its codes and procedures explicitly from an ancient code. a unit fighting to the last man is not unheard of in the west. in the case of the legione entrangere, it's but a popular tradition in the service. no parachutes for pilots? planes are reckoned to be bought back to base in one piece (ok, call me stupid.) as i read back, japan never gave kamikaze orders to its top pilots. saburo sakai was ordered grounded in japan by genda himself. hiroyoshi nishizawa was likewise banned (though he gave his zero to a kamikaze volunteer who succeeded in crashing against a US destroyer so that satisfied nishizawa somewhat.) it was the green horns whose volunteers were accepted. but on the whole, an army loses good men if they count too much on suicide tactics.
Neither. It doesn't offer a strategic advantage what so ever. Its a code of conduct, to uphold ones honor, etc. In the cases of death/suicide rather then capture, it still has the same effect - the combatant is taken out of combat. In the case of choosing Suicide over Capture, the Japanese potentially prevented information from falling into the Americans hands. At the same time, by choosing Suicide/Death, they don't tie up American Logistics with the need to transport POW's from forward areas and interrogate them.
But in many cases soldiers of all ranks committed suicide simply because they lost a battle even though they were not captured. And they may have been very good soldiers. Also, Japan had little regard for life so their pilots did not use parachutes and there was no concern about rescue of downed pilots. I'm sure that captains always went down with their ships. If soldiers were captured, there was no concern about rescue, etc., etc. This unnecessary loss of life may have been an advantage to the allies. Bob
Actually, the code that was in effect in WW II was a double edged sword as far as intelligence was concerned. The code specified death in combat or suicide as the only honorable fate for a warrior, but didn't guarantee that outcome; there would always be some prisoners captured no matter how intensely loyal the Japanese soldiers actually were to the code. And therein lay the problem; because the code forbade surrender, it was impossible for the Japanese military to instruct it's troops in how to behave if the unthinkable occurred. In consequence, Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen, finding themselves alive and in Allied custody had no guidelines as to acceptable behavior. Some simply refused, under interrogation, to divulge any useful information, but a significant number talked quite freely about their service and their experience as a Japanese serviceman. These men frequently provided very useful intelligence, and sometimes even volunteered to actively work for the Allies in jobs such as interpreting and creating propaganda leaflets. These men found no problem in aiding their former enemies and since nothing had been said in their training against collaboration were often more concerned by their failure to die than they were by their treasonous behavior afterward.
Not quite right. Some pilots elected not to use shoots in some circumstancces. Sometimes this was due to a fairly rational analysis of the costs and benefits for not doing so. It was never ordered. furthermore the Japanese did rescue a fair number of pilots. For instance when a CV was sunk they made every effort to rescue any pilots sill on board. Again not quite right. There are a number of Japanese captains who survived thier ships.
well you're right there but the iwo jima experience pre-dated the actual kamikaze campaign. and after sakai escaped from iwo jima, he was really banned from even flying.
I think this Japanese code of discipline may helped them in offensive missions in certain occasions (particularly against lightly armed opposition) like the Chinese divisions but against Western forces with fire superiority they paid dearly for this doctrine and code. Their no retreat defensive doctrine may have made them easier to corner and destroy.
Actually, the Japanese did retreat on numerous occasions during the Pacific war; Kiska, Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Leyte, Luzon, Okinawa come immediately to mind. The Japanese had no compunction about retreating, if the military situation dictated it. The reason the Japanese did not retreat more frequently is that the nature of the fighting on most of the Pacific island battlefields was such that retreat was usually physically impossible. The Japanese combat arms did have a "no surrender" doctrine which meant that, if retreat were impossible, or had not been authorized by a higher command, then a fight to the death was appropriate; no surrender was allowed. If death in combat could not be achieved, then suicide was the only honorable alternative. This doctrine was followed by a surprisingly high per centage of Japan's fighting men, and did not begin to be questioned until quite late in the war when larger numbers of Japanese combatants appeared to be willing to surrender.
