Comparisons You Never Imagined: Vietnam and Kamikaze

I have been reading a very good book about the kamikaze pilots of WW2 recently that I bought in Kagoshima (and will probably give you all a review of it once I finish the last two pages).
But my point today is about the Vietnam War, too.

There were many things these wars had in common, so I won't go listing them all here. But let me say one super-important thing that really needs to be addressed:
In both wars, the sides who prosecuted it, that is to say the sides that initially began armed offensive action: WW2---Japan, Vietnam---USA, both had one vital thing in common, and it was their perspective.

Now, I am acutely aware that I have spruiked and spruiked about 'perspective' and more recently 'attitude' as such important things, but, by golly!, no-one seems to understand it, and no-one in history ever seemed to get the concept either. And if it wasn't so damn important and crucial to the very meaning of EXISTENCE itself, I wouldn't keep bringing it up!

So, back to my point:

In WW2, the Japanese LEADERS (important disticntion here: the Leaders of the country are usually the individuals responsible for starting, continuing, and losing wars. It is only the People of the country that can WIN them.)
The Japanese government of the War-time was inept and fascinated by its own creation of a pseudo-samurai spirit, and marvelled at its own amazing ability to essentially steal a late bloomer of a country that was developing fast, and mobilise the population to fight a war against America. Ok, sure, maybe not anyone can do that, but you'd actually be very surprised how many people CAN do that.
The problem in Japan's case was WHEN to stop fighting.
Through extensive research on my own part, I am steadily gaining a grip on the psyche of the kamikaze, and I want to tell you all about it, probably in the review I'll do of the book.
But the Kamikaze were the penultimate manifestation of the Japanese side of the war. The unltimate of course being complete and utter destruction, including two nuclear wastelands where cities used to be (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and yes, I HAVe been to both!).
The kamikaze attacks came for several cultural reasons that were combining with one BIG factor, which happens to be my main point for this post.

The USA in Vietnam... what can I say? Complete disaster? Unmitigated nightmare?
Well, before I say all the bad stuff, let me comver the good points:...............................
OK, so NOTHING GOOD came of the Vietnam War.
So WHY did the USA prosecute that war for so damn long?? (approx. 11 years if you count the spinning of the Gulf of Tonkin incident).
Follow-up question: Why did two presidents, LBJ and Nixon, both escalate that war separately??

You have questions, I have answers!

Vietnam, in the briefest description you'll ever find (and if you want me to expand, ask me, because I really do know it all!) was the love child of US global dominance and itchy trigger fingers. The Gulf of Tonkin, whether it happened or not, they ran with it, cited north Vietnamese aggression, and took it from there ("they" in this case is the LEADERS of the USA - President, Joint Chiefs, and all other top-dogs who happened to NOT have a son in the military at that time. LBJ had two daughters, for chrissake!)
Also there was the myth of the Domino Theory. On that, really due to unfortunatae circumstances and veiled activies based on bad intelligence, that Theory seemed to be playing out in real-time. To that end, it was somehow misconstrued and spoon-fed to the public that communism was a "godless" evil, and simply had to be stopped from taking over a largely worthless strip of mosquito-infested jungle on the South East Asian coast.
It was escalated twice, as I told you already. The reasons: well, overwhleming firepower and large numbers of men were not getting the job done, so just like when you take medicine that isn't working, you should take more, right? Put more men, money, and materiel into it, and that means we win, right? RIGHT? WRONG!
The reason, in short-sharp-and-shiny form, for the USA's loss in Vietnam was they fought a materiel war when they should have been fighting a political war. Ho Chi Minh, now deified god of Communist Vietnam, was NOT a Communist. He was first and foremost a Vietnamese Nationanlist, and I totally understand where he was coming from: The Froggies (the French, for the uninitiated) had colonised Indo-China (former name for Vietnam area), and lost control of it as the Nazis were kicking their arses during WW2. The colony was, in a sense, liberated from French colonial rule when the Japanese army invaded it durin their prosecution of the Pacific War. France foolishly attempted to re-take their prized possession after the War, but found that the locals didn't want them back. Short on money, manhood, and materiel, the Fench pulled out early and decided to let it go. But that wasn't before the USA, full of manliness and confidence and GOLD! after the war, and also still harbouring a long-festering paranoia of Communism, had decided to get involved. This is where, I can say with confidence, the USA took the wrong turn that has led directly to all its problems in the latter half of the 20th century, and even spilled into the 21st century.
The USA had always been, since its War of Independence, staunchly anti-colonialist. That means it doesn't like Colonies to exist with Imperial mother-countries back in Europe (as it happened to be Europe that colonised the world). Before WW2, America was very content to sit in the Western hemisphere and talk with its Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking neighbours in the Americas and Caribbean, exploit them, etc. Any interference from outside interests, ie the European motherlands, was not liked.
But the USA made its fatal worm-turn in Vietnam. Before "Communism" was even really an issue in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh had helped Allied forces in WW2 by fighting the Japanese occupation there. After Japan's backside was thoroughly kicked, Ho Chi Minh sought help from America in establishing a government in Vientnam, one of national self-determination (meaning a local government run by locals, not overseen and neutered by an imperial overlord back in Europe.
But France, useless ally of the USA and Nazi pin-cushion during WW2, was still in a strong alliance with the USA after the war, and also sought American help to rebuild its fallen outpost in Vietnam. The USA, perhaps for reasons of racism, or perhaps for sake of the WW2 alliance, chose to side with France.
Now, let;s just take a moment to recall any, ANY point in history when taking France's side ever amounted to a good result:
Crimean War: several countries in Europe (except Prussia) lost many men on a rather useless war over a pilgrimage route;
NO-one helped Napoleon;
WWI: French ally Britain lost more men, money, and materiel than it ever had before in a single engagement, and ally Russia had a Communist revolution!
WWII: Pretty much the same as WWI, except Russia lost MORE men, was already Communist, and other countries got involved too!

Siding with France spells DISASTER, and that's just the Historical facts!

So, America, and honestly, I can't think of a rational reason, decided to side with France.
Ho Chi Minh took his next best option, and asked the Soviet for help. The Soviets, desperate as Russia always is of showing its manhood somehow, and as a pariah state seeing a chance to gain another ally at a time where even its official allies didn't like them (ie USA, WWII ally, always distrusted Soviet politics and economic principles), jumped at the chance to help Ho Chi Minh.

And THAT is why America should have been fighting a POLITICAL war in Vientam.

So the USA was doing the wrong thing, and couldn't face the fact that they were losing.

Back to Japan, the Japanese Government if WWII was doing the wrong thing (the ENTIRE WORLD was allied against them), and couldn't face the face that they were losing.
(Details in the book review later)

DO you see a correlation here?!?!?!?!?

Bothe the USA in Vietnam, and Japan in WWII, were fighting a war that they simply should not have been fighting.
What is the answer to such a problem?
Stop fighting??
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!

The Kamikaze were mobilised, such a useless, senseless waste of young mens' lives, and the US army was escalated and enlarged, again, a useless and senseless waste of life, because neither prosecuting states could face the fact that they were losing the War.
Japan's perspective: WWII was somewhat of a Holy War, and America was pure evil that had to be taken out at all costs!
USA's perspective: Vietnam was a war to stop the spread of Communism, which was pure evil, and had to be stopped at any cost.

"At any cost" - nice phrase! It invokes a feeling of desperation, and therein warrants desperate measures to be taken!
And so they were taken.

What started as little war for Japan ballooned out of all recognition into Total War. Total War is a political and historical concept that means all industries and the population too are totaly mobilised to supply the war effort. In light of this, WHAT were the Japanese troops and kamikaze dying for? For the Japanese people's right to work in munitions factories, and so that 14 year old children can exercise their right to work on a building demolition site?
(By the way, most of the people martyred in the Hiroshima Bomb museum were 14 or 16 year olds who were working at building demolition sites on the day of the bomb. WHY THE FUCK WERE 16 YEAR OLDS WORKING AT BUILDING DEMOLITION SITES?!?!?!?!? they should be in school!
Why weren't they in school?? Because the holy government, with holy sanction from the Emperor, determined that demolishing buildings and running a war was more important than educating its youth!
Japan should have surrendered in 1942 or 1943, after the Battle of Midway at the very latest!

The USA should have pulled out early from Vientnam, too, certainly before its troop number reached over a quarter of a million!
The American government had also determined that for its young, fit men the most important thing was to catch an exotic disease, develop intense psychological conditions, and get shot while trudging through endless useless fucking jungles in searing tropical heat and monsoonal rains. Certainly all that was more important than finishing University, getting a job that promotes the economy, and perhaps even cure some nasty diseases and make the world a better place?
Surely!

And for those that are unable to grasp my meaning here, I am heavily deploying a thing called SARCASM here, the highest form of wit. Using it, I can satirically and strongly state the utter folly of things in a way that direct, negative talk never will be able to match.

Both the Japanese and the USA in their respective prosecuted wars had the same problem: they could NOT face the honest truth: they were losing their wars, and no God was going to save them.
The best idea WAS, and still IS in modern times, to pull out early and reassess the situation.

Bismarck achieved a lot more with diplomacy, political battling and realistic application of military force than anyone else ever did using Total warfare or overwhleming force!

To the leaders of today and the future, I urge that you pick up a fucking history book, and READ it!
Read it before your government outlaws such reading because it "disturbs the resolve of the country".

Freedom will reign, one way or another. It just depends how long it takes. How many lives are lost and wasted depends ENTIRELY upon you, so stop blaming a god or running with myths to get things done, and just get things done!

From The Tominator.