Which other countries had "suicidal" aircrew in WW2?

[GrauGeist]

Would pilots that intentionally rammed enemy aircraft count as suicidal?

Most pilots intended to bale out before impact.
Bulgarian Air Force pilots were known for ramming bombers during the war, many survived.

 

[The Basket]

I knew it had something to do with Anime. I am toying with the idea of watching Anime but not sure if that's me.

Stuff like the Commando order meant being captured was not a good idea. Being a spy or secret agent was also not for the long lived

German U Boat crews were another yikes moment. Although any submarine crew, especially them midget submarines meant that saving for old age was not vital.

The Japanese were making an industrial scale suicide machine. Manned torpedo, frogman, speedboat, Banzai charges. The ways to kill yourself for the Emperor were many and varied. Worked though as the Americans were very risk averse when it came to invading the home islands. The Soviets didn't seem to mind.

Suicide bombing in terms of irregular or guerrilla warfare is certainly part of that scene.

By 1944/45 all the Japanese military had left was a willingness to die and that kept the war going at least another year so congratulations to the Japanese on that win.

 

[SaparotRob]

I had a thought along those lines that myself. Assuming no A-bomb and no invasion, would those leaders have counted it as a victory even with their nation left a smoldering cinder?

 

[swampyankee]

I had a thought along those lines that myself. Assuming no A-bomb and no invasion, would those leaders have counted it as a victory even with their nation left a smoldering cinder?

As long as they maintained themselves in power? Probably. While there's focus on 20th Century wars involving the US and Western Europe on this forum, the War of the Triple Alliance didn't end until Paraguay's leader was dead, after the death of up to 70% of the countries population. The post-war census showed a population of about 106,000 women and 29,000 men, so it's probably not unreasonable to conclude that about 70% of the pre-war male population died.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I had a thought along those lines that myself. Assuming no A-bomb and no invasion, would those leaders have counted it as a victory even with their nation left a smoldering cinder?

Not for long. Japan's domestic supplies were carried mostly on interisland steamers. The submarine blockade and aerial mining program had already destroyed that. The 1946 famine would likely have ended the war whether or not the military leadership wanted it, I believe.

 

[SaparotRob]

What I meant was, because of the Imperial leadership mindset (decisive battle, glorious death, etc) and the original goal long forgotten, would the home islands not being invaded become the new win? So what if everybody dies.
Moving the goalposts as it were.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What I meant was, because of the Imperial leadership mindset (decisive battle, glorious death, etc) and the original goal long forgotten, would the home islands not being invaded become the new win? So what if everybody dies.
Moving the goalposts as it were.

Oh, I see. I imagine they'd view starving to death as much less glorious than dying in battle, and would try to provoke that invasion all the same.

 

[SaparotRob]

I never thought of that, but yeah.

 

[The Basket]

The Japanese were military well beyond screwed in August 1945.

Total cut off by Submarine, cities were been turned to ashes and fighters strafing anything that moved so game over.

The only hope that the Japanese had is to turn any American invasion into a bloodbath so they quit. Not happened yet but 40th time is a charm.

The Joker in the pack was the Soviets who were cleaning house in Manchuria and Korea. And planning to invade the home islands. Mass casualty maybe an American nightmare but it was just another Tuesday for Stalin.

Had the Japanese carried on and the Americans became gun shy then it was wide open for Uncle Joe.

So Soviet Japan under the red banner. That would really be the bearing the unbearable. Bet the emperor would be hanging from the nearest lamp post if Uncle Joe had a word.

 

[don4331]

Not for long. Japan's domestic supplies were carried mostly on interisland steamers. The submarine blockade and aerial mining program had already destroyed that. The 1946 famine would likely have ended the war whether or not the military leadership wanted it, I believe.

"Milady, there's no bread and the peasants are starving in the streets"
"Then let them eat cake".

History is filled with leaders who let their populace starve while they remained in power.

War doesn't end because the population is suffering, it ends with regime change.

From what I've read; Soviet attacks started with political prisoners/PoWs leading the assault. For Staling to sacrifice a couple hundred thousand ex-Nazi's wouldn't have hurt his feelings.

 

[The Basket]

I am not aware of any Japanese civilian uprising or even if a uprising was ever even considered.

The only revolt was by the officers who wanted to stop the surrender.

So the lives of the people was of no consequence to the military. Only the intervention of the Emperor called for surrender. I have no concept what the officers who advised for the war was asking for or wanted. I have no idea what their end game was.

The only upswing for the Japanese was Manchuria as they were still in charge until the Soviets moved in. But there was literally nothing positive to continue the war at the end.

 

[pbehn]

John 15:13

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Shakespeare Henry V before Harfleur​

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.

Henry V before Agincourt
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company.

The sentiment of laying down your life for a cause is as old as the the Bible and appears in much famous English literature.

The term "forlorn hope" describes it.
A forlorn hope is a band of soldiers or other combatants chosen to take the vanguard in a military operation, such as a suicidal assault through the kill zone of a defended position, where the risk of casualties is high.[1] ​The term comes from the Dutch verloren hoop, literally 'lost troop'. The term was used in military contexts to denote a troop formation.[3]​[4]​[5]​[6]​The Dutch word hoop (in its sense of 'heap' in English)

Forlorn hope - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Milady, there's no bread and the peasants are starving in the streets"
"Then let them eat cake".

History is filled with leaders who let their populace starve while they remained in power.

You mean the same population that was being issued spears in order to fight the Americans because the bulk of the IJA was trapped in Manchuria due to (you guessed it) submarines? That populace?

Let's see how they do, not only armed with bamboo spears, but starved as well ... and what the military leadership has to fight with when ten or twelve million of them are dead of starvation and clogging the streets in the spring of 1946.

War doesn't end because the population is suffering, it ends with regime change.

Some do and some don't. Russo-Japanese War springs to mind immediately. So does the Korean War, the First Gulf War, the Spanish-American War, and the Crimean War, amongst others, of others that didn't end because of regime change. They ended due to negotiations. Given that the Japanese were already seeking Soviet mediation for a peace agreement before Hiroshima, that could well have been the case with the Pacific War as well, even without the nuclear bombings, except for some bumbling American messaging.

On the other hand, we also have the contrapositive: wars that continued despite regime changes: the American war in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Britain's involvement in WWII (Chamberlain to Churchill).

In short, it's not nearly so simple.

From what I've read; Soviet attacks started with political prisoners/PoWs leading the assault. For Staling to sacrifice a couple hundred thousand ex-Nazi's wouldn't have hurt his feelings.

Sure. What that has to do with the Japanese civilian populace being able to fight Corsairs, B-29s, Shermans, BARS, Marines, dogfaces, naval bombardments, and starvation, with spears and knives (!) is not apparent. Brutal guys are brutal? Yeah, I knew that. But hungry people don't fight past a certain point.

And quite frankly, if they wish to continue fighting, don't land a single soldier; just continue the blockade. Starve the fight out of the Japanese.

 

[The Basket]

The Englishman dying for England is the second greatest honour an Englishman can have.

The greatest honour for the Englishman is killing some Johnny Foreigner and stealing his country.

***Land of Hope and glory playing in background. I salute the flag, tears rolling down my cheeks.***

Starving out the Japanese could take 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 years while American war costs continue to skyrocket and Stalin is taking over Asia. Gotta grab the bull by the horns before the Soviets are marching down Tokyo Boulevard.

The Red clock is going tik tok and you have to wrap this up before Americans is fighting the reds in places like Korea and Indochina.

 

[pbehn]

The Englishman dying for England is the second greatest honour an Englishman can have.

The greatest honour for the Englishman is killing some Johnny Foreigner and stealing his country.

***Land of Hope and glory playing in background. I salute the flag, tears rolling down my cheeks.***

Starving out the Japanese could take 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 years while American war costs continue to skyrocket and Stalin is taking over Asia. Gotta grab the bull by the horns before the Soviets are marching down Tokyo Boulevard.

The Red clock is going tik tok and you have to wrap this up before Americans is fighting the reds in places like Korea and Indochina.

The Bible pre dates the English language by about 1,000 years, this is an English language forum, so I was quoting English language quotes, the same exists in all European languages that I know. As stated in my link forlorn hope comes from the Dutch verloren hoop, and the French for it is enfants perdus (French for 'lost children').

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Starving out the Japanese could take 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 years while American war costs continue to skyrocket and Stalin is taking over Asia. Gotta grab the bull by the horns before the Soviets are marching down Tokyo Boulevard.

Of course. The two nukes may have landed on Japan, but they were clearly aimed at the USSR in geopolitical terms.

I don't know how expensive it'd be to maintain the sub blockade+mining, but I bet it'd be cheaper than a full-on invasion.

 

[The Basket]

Japan was banking on the USSR being a brother and helping Japan out.

They got a very bitter surprise.

They were hoping USSR would broker a peace deal in which they keep Korea and Manchuria. This was unacceptable to America.

The occupation on the mainland and USSR support was the only positive the Japanese had. The only bargaining position they had left.

Japan was a dictatorship with the people as passengers.

America was open and their was a fear of war weariness as the war dragged on. People would begin to question the war and war bonds no longer supported. Especially if Japanese cities were being turned to ash and the only alternative was a bloody invasion.

A blockade could have taken years and the government was not sure the people would have waited that long. Plus you are still spending huge bags of cash on aircraft carriers and mess tins.

 

[swampyankee]

There was certainly no love lost between the USSR and Japan. While Japan's defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, and the resulting political turmoil in Russia, exacerbated due to Nicholas II's totally inept response, may have been significant in Lenin's takeover in 1917, I don't think it's inaccurate to claim that the USSR's government had quite similar desires in Manchuria as did the Romanov's.

 

[The Basket]

The Soviet Japanese neutrality pact signed in 1941 was certainly a big thing for the Japanese and a straw to cling onto.

Problem is Stalin was on the hunt and his only fear is that the war would end before he got his boots full.

Problem is that Russian problems became Soviet problems. But the problem stayed the same.

Turning the Russian Japanese defeat in 1905 was certainly a driving force. Plus access to a warm water port.

The war in Afghanistan may have had more to do with a Russian Victorian view of the world rather than modern politics.

 

[33k in the air]

From what I've read; Soviet attacks started with political prisoners/PoWs leading the assault. For Staling to sacrifice a couple hundred thousand ex-Nazi's wouldn't have hurt his feelings.

There was evidently a saying which went "it took a brave man to not be a hero in the Soviet army" --- a reference to the fact that the Soviet Army expected its own troops to fight to the death for the motherland.