Which WWII Axis nation produced most dangerous pilots?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would have to say both and very brave to go along with it.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

pilot's that are willing to ram into ships, or even planes in some cases, to save their homeland are far from stupid, they are brave and noble men worthy of our respect.........

[plan_D]

I'd say fanatical and brainwashed but okay.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree, brainwashed but very brave.

[mosquitoman]

All nation's forces talk about fighting to the last ullet, but the Japanese were the only ones to actually do it. That's why they deserve respect

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't know folks, to make the ultimate sacrifice in that matter, I guess could be perceived as very brave, but knowing now that their sacrifice was in vain?!?

I think suicide tactics in warfare are useless, now matter how brave perceived!

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes they are useless, but at least they do not have to face te shame of surrendering........

[Chiron]

Bushido in war actually became very dangerous to civilizans in large. Japanese armies were infamous for killing and playing thier captured enemies as well as civilians. For example, the Rape of Naking, thousands of women were raped in horrific ways (such as scenes of raping pregnant women and decapitated the women and cooked the infants). Even the Nazi representative was horrifyed by what he saw, and actually set up a camp in Naking to help Chinese civilians.

In comparsion to German army, I found Japanese armies were fighing in more like medieval like of war; even worsened than their counterparts Chinese, who were lack of equipemnts but not in fighting.

But again, in war, most of men go wild, few remains conscious.

[plan_D]

Personally, I don't find the blind fanatical attitude of the Japanese soldier worthy of my respect. Their prowess on the field of battle does but their willingness of commiting suicide and their shameful treatment of those that surrendered is ing, even by war standards.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by plan_D

their shameful treatment of those that surrendered is ing, even by war standards.

Great statement! My wife's grandfather surrendered at Baatan. He was pulled off the death march when it was discovered he was an intel officer. He wrote a book about the whole ordeal

[Chiron]

Regarding of Japanese warrior code in war, how do you compare this with chivalry in Europe?

I found it interesting that both Europeans and Japan have similar warrior code of honor (correct me if i am wrong on this).

Also, how about German soldiers? Other than their attitude toward poor Jewish people, how Germans treat their POW, women, and civilians?

[FLYBOYJ]

I just saw a special about Japanese POW camps, if you were captured by the Germans, there was someting like a 4 in 100 chance you would die in captivity. If you were captured by the Japanese, that rose to 35 in 100!

[plan_D]

European Chivilary is hardly comparable to the Japanese Warrior Code; Bushido. Chivilary in the Middle Ages was used to bring two comparable warriors on the battle face-to-face, their social standing would have to be equal. By World War II it provided a face of gentlemanship, they were your enemies but they were doing their duty. When the battle is over, the best man won that is all. Those that surrendered were not treated harshly by those that still held the values of Chivilary. There was no disgrace in surrendering in the face of a superior enemy.

Bushido always instilled in the mind to fight to your last breath. By retreating or surrendering, you disgrace your Commander, your Shogun or your Emperor. Disgraceful defeat would mean suicide. This was still the same in World War II.

World War II was Total War. The Allies and Axis all shot men who had surrendered on the battlefield. There were many reasons for that, most of the time for the Axis or Allies on the Western Front it was because they didn't have time to send them to the back or couldn't send them to the back.
On the Eastern Front it was harsh hell and both Soviets and Germans were as bad as one another. I, personally, think that the Soviets were just as bad as the Japanese. The only reason people survived incampment in the Soviet Union was because the Soviets realised they were running short of slave workers.
In the CBI and PTO though, the Japanese acted like savage animals to those they captured. When a man surrenders and you accept his surrender, he is off the battlefield and no longer a combatant. And should be treat like a non-combatant but the Japanese did just as bad to civilians as they did to soldiers. Look at what they did in China.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by plan_D

When a man surrenders and you accept his surrender, he is off the battlefield and no longer a combatant. And should be treat like a non-combatant but the Japanese did just as bad to civilians as they did to soldiers. Look at what they did in China.

Not trying to push the familiy business, try to get a copy of my wife's grandfather's book "Surviving the Day." My mother in law was always on my case to read it, when I finally did, I couldn't put it down. It describes exactly what you're saying.

[evangilder]

Another interesting one is "Flyboys". It describes what happened to the pilots that were shot down while bombing Chichi-Jima. Horrific.