Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FiLtH on April 04, 2010, 09:04:07 PM
-
Well.... next week looks good!
-
Well.... next week looks good!
:aok
-
Im really disappointed with the series so far. Everything from the casting, the battle scenes, everything. I'll keep watching it, but I dont expect much. Hopefully it will turn around.
-
, the battle scenes, everything. I'll keep watching it, but I dont expect much.
How can you say that?
That battle on Guadalcanal looks right on from all the original footage and photo's I have seen. The thousand japanese bodies steched across alligator creek looked scary like it was the real thing.
my .02
Todd
-
"Band of Brothers" set the bar really high. Almost a decade later, the theme song still makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck, and sends a chill down my spine. It's going to be next to impossible to reach that level again.
-
Im really disappointed with the series so far. Everything from the casting, the battle scenes, everything. I'll keep watching it, but I dont expect much. Hopefully it will turn around.
Peleliu is next, and it takes 3 episodes. It's not going to be pretty. Leckie's unit went in with 1500 guys. A week later they've got about 30 combat effective.
-
The Iwo Jima and Okinawa episodes will be brutal as well. Especially if they touch on the civilian impact of Okinawa.
-
Im really disappointed with the series so far. Everything from the casting, the battle scenes, everything. I'll keep watching it, but I dont expect much. Hopefully it will turn around.
Well, if you compare the two books the series was based on, Leckie's and Sledge's, E.B. Sledge's book is the better, and in my opinion, by a large margin. Considering that almost all of these first 4 episodes have been based on Leckie's memoir, I should think that remainder of the episodes will, at least, be buttressed by a better foundation. I think some of Leckie's experience, given its more intangible, mental impact, is tough to encapsulate in a 45 minute episode. Some of what happened with him in this episode I found to be the most compelling yet. The letters to Vera (which aren't represented in the book) are a clever technique to illustrate his frame of mind.
-
Stoney I agree with ya on that . Leckie's story was changed up from the book some . However Sledges story is the better of the two . Lets just see where this goes .
With all things they can't get everything perfect and I don't expect them too . I am enjoying it so far and it is entertaining to me .
Nutte
-
Todd, my wife even said it lastnight, something about how you dont really get attached to thses guys like you did in BoB. Just my 2 cents as well :)
-
The Iwo Jima and Okinawa episodes will be brutal as well. Especially if they touch on the civilian impact of Okinawa.
The high civilian deaths will be a touchy subject to cover. They may thus avoid it. The US view is that the high death toll was the fault of the Japanese military and their government's propaganda, and not the fault of US military action. In contrast, the Japanese describe the American troops as bloodthirsty savages, bent on murder and rape.
Hopefully the series will not show disputed acts like US troops mass raping young little girls, as the Japanese have claimed happened. If it does, I will never watch HBO again.
.
-
It seems to me like its pushing the anti-war message down the viewers throat.
-
It seems to me like its pushing the anti-war message down the viewers throat.
If your showing the lives of individual soldiers in the battles they were in some what realistically how could you be Pro war? My father was a WWII & Korean war Vet with the Australian army he loved war movies but always would tell me that the movies were always total BS not even close to the horrors he witnessed & the false bravado of a John Wayne movie.
I would say so far it is a fair to good portrayal of how those guys dealt with the situation they had to live with based off what so little my father would discuss.
-
It seems to me like its pushing the anti-war message down the viewers throat.
Executive Producers Spielberg and Hanks are simply trying their best to "educate" the American public.
.
-
Executive Producers Spielberg and Hanks are simply trying their best to "educate" the American public.
.
These are the same guys that are responsible for publicizing and raising the money for the WWII memorial in Washington DC. I don't think there motives are in question. Also, I take it that you guys (Tango and TwinEng) haven't read either of the books the series is based on?
-
Spielberg's father was with the 490TH bomb squadron called the Skull & wings squadron it served in the CBI. He has always bent over backwards for those guys in WWII in real life & in his movies & has tried to show realistically the most he can with out it being rated out of existence.
-
I haven't seen any evidence of any kind anti war message yet, so far just basically the story of what actually happened.
-
The high civilian deaths will be a touchy subject to cover. They may thus avoid it. The US view is that the high death toll was the fault of the Japanese military and their government's propaganda, and not the fault of US military action. In contrast, the Japanese describe the American troops as bloodthirsty savages, bent on murder and rape.
Hopefully the series will not show disputed acts like US troops mass raping young little girls, as the Japanese have claimed happened. If it does, I will never watch HBO again.
.
There's a HUGE difference between trying to pass off blame and a total whitewashing of history. You're advocating the latter.
Atrocities WERE committed by Americans against the Okinawans. It DID happen. However while the Okinawans have said that the Americans committed rape and murder as well, they have ALSO outright said that what the Americans did wasn't a drop in the bucket compared to the Japanese Army's almost assembly line process of rape and pillage.
-
Atrocities WERE committed by Americans against the Okinawans. It DID happen.
What's your source here Sax; I'm curious?
-
What's your source here Sax; I'm curious?
dude, it happened everywhere in ww2. Americans were just as good as executing prisoners and civilians as Japanese and Germans were. not trying to judge or condemned anybody that fought in ww2, but it did happened. remember in band of brother when captain winters asked one of the soldiers to escort prisoners back to hq, then he orders him to drop all his ammo and only gives him one bullet. and he says to him, if he kills one prisoners the other will jump him? that was based on a true story, the guy was knows for executing every single German soldier that he could get his hands on. Am I judging him? no, his family was Jewish and some got killed by the Germans so he wanted revenge but then again I dont justify it either. read books from people that were there and they all mention how they saw prisoners and sometimes civilians being executed,. It is just war, not an excuse but some soldiers for whatever reason, will kill for no reason. it has happened since the civil war all the way to now.
semp
-
The current anti-war movement in the United States was started by the WWII generation. It is their kids who took what their parents started and turned it into what happened in the 60's and still is going on today.
Everyone should be anti-war.
I am very much against war. I just happen to believe that the best way to prevent one is a very strong military and an aggressive foreign policy. WWII in my mind would have been a much smaller conflict or resolved without bloodshed if the west had not tried to be isolationist, negotiate with Hitler, engage in arms limitation agreements etc etc.
We are about to make the same mistakes.
The argument isn't about who is anti-war and who isn't. Only a child thinks war is something "fun". The argument is about how to best prevent the next war or at least prevent the global conflicts that kill by the millions.
-
dude, it happened everywhere in ww2.
Sax is talking about U.S. Marines purposefully killing Okinawan civilians. That's different from what happened to the combatants. I'm not saying its not possible. I lived in Okinawa for a while, and know a good bit about the history of the battle. I'd never heard of Marines committing documented atrocities against the civilian population there, so I'm curious.
-
Check out this story, for starters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/01/world/3-dead-marines-and-a-secret-of-wartime-okinawa.html?pagewanted=1
And this, written by an American serviceman:
"There was some return fire from a few of the houses, but the others were probably occupied by civilians - and we didn't care. It was a terrible thing not to distinguish between the enemy and women and children. Americans always had great compassion, especially for children. Now we fired indiscriminately." (excerpt from The Battle of Okinawa by George Feifer).
But if you read my original post, I said there was a HUGE difference between the actions of the handful of Americans involved, and what was essentially state-sponsored by the Japanese.
-
Check out this story, for starters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/01/world/3-dead-marines-and-a-secret-of-wartime-okinawa.html?pagewanted=1
And this, written by an American serviceman:
"There was some return fire from a few of the houses, but the others were probably occupied by civilians - and we didn't care. It was a terrible thing not to distinguish between the enemy and women and children. Americans always had great compassion, especially for children. Now we fired indiscriminately." (excerpt from The Battle of Okinawa by George Feifer).
But if you read my original post, I said there was a HUGE difference between the actions of the handful of Americans involved, and what was essentially state-sponsored by the Japanese.
The first example is something that happened during urban combat. Not exactly an "attrocity". Indiscriminate fire is just that, indiscriminate--meaning it wasn't aimed at anyone. The second example is an "urban legend" of sorts that has never been proven. I was over there right after they found those remains and all that was found were remains. The story came out after the bodies were found. Oddly enough, that story was printed in the NY Times right around the time another high-profile off-base alleged rape case was under investigation.
-
It seems to me like its pushing the anti-war message down the viewers throat.
I must've blinked through that bit because in the 4 so far I haven't seen anything like it.
In Part 4 my wife actually sat and watched it, and after explaining a few points about the story when the mortar training scene came up she asked whether lot of japs were called Tojo - after explaining who Tojo actually was, I did have to make mention that probably not too many japs were actually named F face however!
Tronsky
-
If your showing the lives of individual soldiers in the battles they were in some what realistically how could you be Pro war? My father was a WWII & Korean war Vet with the Australian army he loved war movies but always would tell me that the movies were always total BS not even close to the horrors he witnessed & the false bravado of a John Wayne movie.
I would say so far it is a fair to good portrayal of how those guys dealt with the situation they had to live with based off what so little my father would discuss.
My father was a tail gunner in a B-29 in Korea, so I have heard from him what it was like. He didn't like to talk about it either.
I guess I'm just a bit biased by Hanks remark about how they were racists. Whats missing is any talk about being there to stop the Japs form taking over and what they did at PH. WW2 was a justified war, but I keep getting the impression that they all want to pack up and go home. I'm grateful they didn't do that and took the war to them and saved the free world.
Band of Brothers was FAR better.
-
The current anti-war movement in the United States was started by the WWII generation. It is their kids who took what their parents started and turned it into what happened in the 60's and still is going on today.
Everyone should be anti-war.
I am very much against war. I just happen to believe that the best way to prevent one is a very strong military and an aggressive foreign policy. WWII in my mind would have been a much smaller conflict or resolved without bloodshed if the west had not tried to be isolationist, negotiate with Hitler, engage in arms limitation agreements etc etc.
We are about to make the same mistakes.
The argument isn't about who is anti-war and who isn't. Only a child thinks war is something "fun". The argument is about how to best prevent the next war or at least prevent the global conflicts that kill by the millions.
+1
-
dude, it happened everywhere in ww2. Americans were just as good as executing prisoners and civilians as Japanese and Germans were.
semp
Read "The Rape of Nanking" and then try to equate the Americans and the Japanese. One estimate is 30 million Chinese killed by the Japanese.
-
I am very much against war. I just happen to believe that the best way to prevent one is a very strong military and an aggressive foreign policy. WWII in my mind would have been a much smaller conflict or resolved without bloodshed if the west had not tried to be isolationist, negotiate with Hitler, engage in arms limitation agreements etc etc.
Alas, that's not the only thing that went wrong in the chain of events leading to the WWII. Things went sour since the treaty of versailles (the end of WWI), it was a bad peace treaty.
-
Read "The Rape of Nanking" and then try to equate the Americans and the Japanese. One estimate is 30 million Chinese killed by the Japanese.
I must agree that Japanese were far by worse than Americans or Germans, especially with the treatment of PoWs.
-
I guess I'm just a bit biased by Hanks remark about how they were racists.
Thats not what he meant, his remarks are being taken out of context
Tronsky
-
Read "The Rape of Nanking" and then try to equate the Americans and the Japanese. One estimate is 30 million Chinese killed by the Japanese.
like I said, I wasn't judging. I am not trying to criticize what we did back in ww2. in a way I understand why some soldiers killed prisioners and and sometimes civilians. u get in a firefight and you will shoot anything that moves, or see your buddy get killed and you want payback. we were not like the germans, japanese or the Italians who executed millions for no reason.
semp
-
Well, if you compare the two books the series was based on, Leckie's and Sledge's, E.B. Sledge's book is the better, and in my opinion, by a large margin.
I liked them both, funny though, I though Leckie's book was a little better. Seemed more literary to me.
-
we were not like the germans, japanese or the Italians who executed millions for no reason.
semp
Whew. I'm glad you clarified. <S>
HONK!
Gooss
-
Thats not what he meant, his remarks are being taken out of context
Tronsky
Kind of hard to be taken out of context when its a video of him saying it.
-
Kind of hard to be taken out of context when its a video of him saying it.
For all the stuff he's done for veterans of WWII, you think he would actually bad mouth them? Tom Hanks is not some stereotypical Hollywood type...
What he said was: "“...Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different..." And in another interview: "...The Pacific' is coming out now, where it represents a war that was of racism and terror. And where it seemed as though the only way to complete one of these battles on one of these small specks of rock in the middle of nowhere was to - I’m sorry - kill them all..."
If you read about the racism that permeated the PTO, or have spoken with a veteran of the Pacific war, you know this is a pretty accurate description. In no way does this slander the service our Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines performed for this country during the war.
-
What he said was: "“...Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different..." If you read about the racism that permeated the PTO, or have spoken with a veteran of the Pacific war, you know this is a pretty accurate description. In no way does this slander the service our Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines performed for this country during the war.
Till my fathers dieing day he never forgave the Japanese. The comments he had always made makes all the above very tame.
-
Kind of hard to be taken out of context when its a video of him saying it.
Stoney has pretty much summed up exactly what I was going to say - you'll find that context is often the most important thing and tho some have seen Hanks mention racism as being "part" of the overall conflict and come away with Tom Hanks says PTO was racist ergo all veterans are racists, this was far far from the point he was making. I would've hoped his actions in regards to the D-Day Museum, and other veteran groups spoke more about the man than any misconceptions.
Tronsky
-
Till my fathers dieing day he never forgave the Japanese. The comments he had always made makes all the above very tame.
Ya from what Ive read, racism was a key factor in why went to war, and how it was fought throughout. My great Uncle was in the Pacific, he hated everyone. I often wondered if the war made him that way or if he was just born mean.
-
And just to expound a little...
I remember in the BoB documentary that was included with the DVD set, Shifty Powers made the comment that (and I paraphrase) "...in another situation, those German soldiers and me might have been good friends. He might have liked to fish and I might have liked to hunt..."
There was no such identification with the Japanese soldiers from Allied troops in PTO. Personally, I think its one of the more fascinating things about the Pacific war.
-
The argument isn't about who is anti-war and who isn't. Only a child thinks war is something "fun". The argument is about how to best prevent the next war or at least prevent the global conflicts that kill by the millions.
Someone from nearly every human civilization throughout history has tried to figure out how to do that and not one has been successful.
Ya from what Ive read, racism was a key factor in why went to war, and how it was fought throughout. My great Uncle was in the Pacific, he hated everyone. I often wondered if the war made him that way or if he was just born mean.
After reading through this thread I am truly amazed at the number of people who don't know U.S. history. Racism wasn't a "key factor" in the U.S. declaring war, prejudice and bigotry kept us out until December 7, 1941. Prior to that date racial segregation was a part of American life but Asians weren't subjected to it except in some extreme Southern states...afterward, anyone who even looked like they were of Japanese descent was rounded up and put into internment camps...even if they were American citizens or married to American citizens...it took legal action and sometimes political action to get them out. There were some cases of German immigrants (even Jewish descent) being rounded up and put into internment camps...because of the suspicion of spies.
If Tom Hanks had specifically stated that the U.S. servicemen were and are racist, he would have more right than wrong...if you really think that "mick", "spic", "tojo", "nip", "darky", "kraut", "daygo", "haji", "dink", "slope", etc... are all words derived from love for ones fellow man you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
-
Prior to that date racial segregation was a part of American life but Asians weren't subjected to it except in some extreme Southern states...
There's probably a lot of Chinese in the western states that would have disagreed with you.
-
There's probably a lot of Chinese in the western states that would have disagreed with you.
LOL...Stoney, I wasn't thinking about the 19th Century but good call...totally forgot about Chinatown.
-
Stoney has pretty much summed up exactly what I was going to say - you'll find that context is often the most important thing and tho some have seen Hanks mention racism as being "part" of the overall conflict and come away with Tom Hanks says PTO was racist ergo all veterans are racists, this was far far from the point he was making. I would've hoped his actions in regards to the D-Day Museum, and other veteran groups spoke more about the man than any misconceptions.
Tronsky
The reason the Japs were hated at that time was not because they were inferior or the color of thier skin, but because of what they did at Pearl Harbor. For him to state that our soldiers were racist was wrong. He made it sound as though the whole US military was.
-
Ya from what Ive read, racism was a key factor in why went to war, and how it was fought throughout. My great Uncle was in the Pacific, he hated everyone. I often wondered if the war made him that way or if he was just born mean.
You only have to go back & look at the news reels of the day & training films provided to troops to see that the enemy was made out to be less than human. Why? very simple it is a lot easier to kill some one if you believe they are inferior to you. So race most certainly was a part of the war & in particular the Pacific.
-
gyrene if you dont think that white americans were racist toward asians before the war, you need to read a bit more yourself. While you are at it, try getting over yourself.
-
gyrene, The single largest reason the Japanese were so hated was for the attack on Pearl Harbor which was considered cowardly as they were officially promising peace. It had nothing to do with racism or bigotry until the propaganda machine became involved and began to describe the Japanese as inhuman monsters.
-
The reason the Japs were hated at that time was not because they were inferior or the color of thier skin, but because of what they did at Pearl Harbor. For him to state that our soldiers were racist was wrong. He made it sound as though the whole US military was.
I would like to call attention to the syntax that Hanks chose in expressing his opinion. He did not call the American serviceman "racist". He said that racism played a large part in the PTO. To know that official U.S. Navy intel reports discussed the fact that Japanese airmen had an advantage in night vision, because of their different eye shape--that's definitive racism. We're not talking about burning crosses on the lawn of the Japanese embassy. We're talking about prejudice that took primacy in the U.S. understanding of the Japanese culture. They were just as guilty, if not more, of making the same mistakes about us.
-
The reason the Japs were hated at that time was not because they were inferior or the color of thier skin, but because of what they did at Pearl Harbor. For him to state that our soldiers were racist was wrong. He made it sound as though the whole US military was.
Pearl may have been a catalyst, but it certainly grew from that point and became far more a decisive war of culture and ethnicity compared to the ETO.
Again Hanks did not call veterans of the PTO racists or their specific motivation to participate only racially motivated.
Tronsky