It doesnt have as much action as the European theater one did. Really needs more battle scenes.

 But isnt as negative as it could have been. And is still reverent to the soldiers who served.

Let's face it, we were a country that wouldn't even allow blacks to fight- how do you think our troops felt about the Japanese, who were not only different looking, but culturally almost incomprehensible to us?

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:30 PM

Note to Tuskegee Airman, go fuck yourself and your WWII service to America.

Open Blogger

Posted by: This is Concerned at March 28, 2010 06:35 PM (Pq5ey)

http://tinyurl.com/yakvbzx

@#10 Episode 2 featured this guy

http://tinyurl.com/yaftglo

Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone

With a shout out to Chesty Puller as well

Note to Tuskegee Airman, go fuck yourself and your WWII service to America.

They, and a few other experiments, were the exception to the rule. Indeed, you know of the Tuskegee Airmen, but do you know about the 91st and 92nd Divisions? Probably not. But the fact of the matter is, most blacks who served were relegated to support roles, and were certainly not integrated into the combat units. You'll notice a distinct lack of African American representation in both Band of Brothers and The Pacific. Why? Because it is a reflection of the reality of that time.

do you know about the 91st and 92nd Divisions?

---------

Not like we will ever see a movie about the Italian theater any time soon. Can only thing of two hollywood ever did (Anzio and Walk in the Sun. Not including  To Hell and Back as that was more about Audie Murphy than the Italian Campaign)

"The Pacific" blows.  It's not fit to carry "Band of Brothers" jock strap.

For fuck's sake, even frigging Ross from "Friends" was awesome in "Band of Brothers."  I can't say that any of the actors in "The Pacific" even gets close to the weakest performances....

That said, "Band of Brothers" was probably the greatest miniseries ever.  So "The Pacific" was never going to measure up anyway.

As a total history dork, I demand miniseries on the African Front and the Eastern European front from Spielberg and Hanks.  Because I want it all!!

OK, I ain't flaming you, but I'm calling shenanigan's on the understated theme you are projecting.

I saw a WWII poster showing the difference in appearance between the Japanese and the Chinese soldiers.  Basically, the Japanese were portrayed to look aweful, while the Chinese were portrayed to look noble.  Why?  Pretty obvious to me:  We were fighting against the Japanese and with the Chinese.

Go look at some WWII posters portraying the Germans.  (AKA The Hun.  The Kraut bastard.  etc...)They too will look pretty aweful, while the French and British looked all noble.  Why:  Same reason as above.

Posted by: Original Mikey at March 28, 2010 06:52 PM (TJoID)

Posted by: XBradTC at March 28, 2010 06:53 PM (cB95w)

FatBaldnSassy at March 28, 2010 06:55 PM (Lq9ag)

Dude, I read that memoir.  It was amazing.  I'm surprised it didn't attract a wider following.

The Old Man vs The Angry Young Sergeant.  Perfectly encapsulated what we are vs what we become.  And the ending, when the Old Man realizes he will never see the Angry Young Sergeant again, and the tears this realization causes?  Wow.

Are you kidding.

This show has been awful.

One major thing that pisses me off are the night battles. YOU CAN"T SEE ANYTHING. not a damn thing. i get that it is supposed to be the night, but in the Band of Brothers they at least shot the  night scenes with enough light to see what was going on.  Think of the episode where they attacked the MG42 at night and "got seven of them in one blow". I could see what was happening and stil understood that it was a nighttime event. However in the Pacific, I can't see who is shooting who or who is doing the shooting in the night time battles.

People are dying without being introduced as characters. The first episode was a mishmash of crap. The episodes are BARELY 50 minutes long.

I was almost as disappointed by the second episode as I was by the first.

Tom Hanks idiotic statements aside, this series is very poorly done, and doesn't even belong in the same league as Band of Brothers.

Also, this has nothing to do with one being in europe and the other in the pacific, I say this based solely on the quality of the writing, flow of the story, character development, cinematography and  the ability of the show to draw the viewer in.

This accomplished none and or fails just about all of them

I know the series isn't over, and will watch all ten episodes, but so far I am extremely disappointed and clearly i am not alone.

Hey morons?  Just between you and me, I kinda don't like the use of the word "Japs."

I know it has historic precedense.  And I understand a WWII vet using it.  But I wasn't there.  And no disrespect intended, but I don't think most of the people who have been using it on this thread were there either.

So I don't think you or I have earned the right to use that word.

Mind you, quoting some vet who used it is OK.  But just slinging it arround of your own perogative?  Not OK.

Basically, the Japanese were portrayed to look aweful

Posted by: Ed at March 28, 2010 06:53 PM (OCfDT)

Movies produced during this period depicted the Japanese as blood thirsty animals who were always shot down in aerial fights, bayoneted in ground contact, and killed by artillery without American forces suffering loses.

The propaganda machine was well oiled, and for 10 cents, a kid could see two full length movies and 4-6 serials featuring Spider Lady, The Shadow, or the Green Hornet, etc. 

I loved Saturday's because my father was a pilot in the Pacific Theater fighting the Japs, and we cheered when fake blood shot out of the pilot's mouth and his plane went into a death spiral. 

Yes, my dad returned and lived to 95 years passing in 2005.  

The cherry trees currently in blossom in DC were an expression of thanks for the overwhelming American charity sent after the great Tokyo earthquake in 1923. Japan tied down the German flotilla at Tsingtao in WWI, and was granted, as an ally, some of the territory stripped from their empire, as well as an endorsed sense of entitlement to the former German sphere of influence in China trade. We and the Japanese were the best of buddies--better than the UK, in the 20's--until Manchuria began.

There was a very visible attempt to gin up anti-Japanese racism after the war began, but it was a screeching reversal of US general feeling just prior to that. Hollywood's "patriotism" then was as simplistic and transparent as its anti-imperialism is now, and just as obviously scripted.

If the Pacific campaign was based on racism, why not the Chinese? The sense of respect for the Chinese that began with Pearl Buck's generation of writers grew during the war, with government encouragement, and was a big factor in the acceptance of the Mao takeover five years later. Bing Vinegar Joe.

Thanks for the info XBradTC. 

If the Pacific campaign was based on racism, why not the Chinese? The sense of respect for the Chinese that began with Pearl Buck's generation of writers grew during the war, with government encouragement, and was a big factor in the acceptance of the Mao takeover five years later. Bing Vinegar Joe.

Posted by: comatus at March 28, 2010 07:04 PM (/VEEI)

exactly

What made Band of Brothers great was Dick Winters and the actor who portrayed him. If Pacific doesn't have that, it will be inferior.

this kind of follows the Phantom Menance crtique that was so popular. With BoB you had a protagonist, you had a story from one mans perspective, or one unites prospective. It was an ensemble yes, but it didn't feel that way at times, whereas the Pacfic is all over the place, bringing in people without explanation, and killing them off without developing their character or at the very least the reason they are in the film. Part of what makes a good movie or series, is that everything and everyone has a purpose, they advance the story in some way. The Pacific doesn't seem to grasp this concept.

Also, to the poster Brad, I don't think anyone is arguing their weren't racist terms used in the heat of the battle, or anything like that, I think people were pissed when Hanks said the war was SOLELY about racism. That we killed millions of Japanese simply because they  were brown skinned or of a different religion.

@17...According to your Wiki link now I know he dies

Ima gonna give this episode one last shot

Every one so far sucked donkee cocks

I just got hooked on Breaking Bad

Never laughed so hard in my life

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, signing off at March 28, 2010 07:04 PM (JrRME)

Hey morons?  Just between you and me, I kinda don't like the use of the word "Japs."

I know it has historic precedense.  And I understand a WWII vet using it.  But I wasn't there.  And no disrespect intended, but I don't think most of the people who have been using it on this thread were there either.

So I don't think you or I have earned the right to use that word.

Mind you, quoting some vet who used it is OK.  But just slinging it arround of your own perogative?  Not OK.

I've never understood why the term Jap is offensive.

Canadian=Canuck

Polish= Pole

Russian=Russkie

American=Yank

Japanese=Jap

I don't get how abbreviating the name is racist. Now Nips, I can understand that, but Japs?

http://tinyurl.com/yakvbzx

Posted by: William Amos at March 28, 2010 06:39 PM (PXTi

Is there a monthly charge?  If so, why am I paying 14 bucks to download it?  It looks interesting - any good?

Posted by: Blazer at March 28, 2010 07:08 PM (t72+4)

"The British by night, the Americans by day" was the practice:  The RAF did most of the 'firestorm' mass bombing of German cities during WWII and the USAAF did precision bombing during the day

Hamburg and Dresden were mostly destroyed by British RAF bombing at night

and race played what part, 'XBad'??

#22

"Go for Broke" is a good flick about the 442nd regimmental combat  team.

Ben, I'm pretty upset at the cinematography as well.

And I think it is a harder story to tell than BoB as well. Most people have a pretty good idea of the campaign in Europe. Not so much the Pacific theater.

Brad, I will agree, for the average viewer, yes it is harder to understand. But dear lord they spend 10 minutes of every episode explaining it. Is that really needed? I mean it has 3 million viewers per episode and I would bet 90 percent arent just "casual" viewers, but people like us who understand what happened in the Pacific theater and why.

I don't think the relative ignorance of most pertaining to the Pacific theater is what is making this series substandard.

Also, when i say it is bad, i mean in comparison to BoB. The Pacific hasn't reached anywhere near the level of "Pearl Harbor", which did make me root for the Japanese to kill American soldiers, specifically Ben Affleck

Dresden and Hamburg got it just just as bad as any Japanese city that had a nuke dropped on it.
Posted by: Blazer at March 28, 2010 07:08 PM (t72+4)

Maybe, Maybe not. Interestingly enough some English Historians just released last week an study which said alot fewer Germans died in Dresden then the Nazis said. No where near the 100,000 figure--more like 10 thousand. But even if it was ONLY 10,000 it certainly was not fro lack of tyring and your basic argument still stands

All that matters of the 100,000 or 10,000 was that that douchebag Kurt Vonnegat wasn't one of them.

I don't get how abbreviating the name is racist. Now Nips, I can understand that, but Japs?

Posted by: Ben at March 28, 2010 07:12 PM (jvBhz)

Why Nips?  Nip = Nippon = City in Japan.  Just another abbreviation as far as I know.

I mean, are we gonna start lashing people about with wet noodle that go 'round calling New Englanders "Yanks"?  We're talking about a brutal and vicious war for national survival - I think a thicker skin is in order whether I was there personally or not.  You pull a knife or gun on me in any situation and I will not be complimenting your mother, family, clothes, or any other thing I can figger out.

 Murphy saw no action in Africa, but instead participated in extensive training maneuvers along with the rest of the 3rd Division. His combat initiation finally came when he took part in the invasion of Sicily on July 10, 1943.Shortly after arriving, Murphy was promoted to corporal^[ after killing two Italian officers as they tried to escape on horseback. He contracted malaria while in Sicily, an illness which put him in the hospital several times during his Army years.

After Sicily was secured from Axis forces, the 3rd Division invaded the Italian mainland, landing near Salerno in September 1943. While leading a night patrol, Murphy and his men ran into German soldiers but fought their way out of an ambush, taking cover in a rock quarry. The German command sent a squad of soldiers in, but they were stopped by intense machine-gun and rifle fire. Three German soldiers were killed and several others captured.As a result of his actions at Salerno, Murphy was promoted to sergeant.

Murphy distinguished himself in action on many occasions while in Italy, fighting at the Volturno River  at the Anzio beachhead,and in the cold, wet Italian mountains. While in Italy, his skills as a combat infantryman earned him promotions and decorations for valor.

Hey morons, if you liked Goodbye Darkness, you might want to check out the book "Battle Cry" by Leon Uris.  It was really good too.  Marines in the Pacific in WWII.

Marion, Danny, Mac, LQ Jones, Ski..., great characters.

Posted by: United States at March 28, 2010 07:12 PM (fwSHf)

That is why we need to go to war with the Scandis. They are whiter than us.

I don't get how abbreviating the name is racist. Now Nips, I can understand that, but Japs?

Posted by: Ben at March 28, 2010 07:12 PM (jvBhz)

Why Nips?  Nip = Nippon = City in Japan.  Just another abbreviation as far as I know.

I mean, are we gonna start lashing people about with wet noodle that go 'round calling New Englanders "Yanks"?  We're talking about a brutal and vicious war for national survival - I think a thicker skin is in order whether I was there personally or not.  You pull a knife or gun on me in any situation and I will not be complimenting your mother, family, clothes, or any other thing I can figger out.

Really? I did not know that. I always thought it had to something to do with the fact they were shorter.

Is there a monthly charge?  If so, why am I paying 14 bucks to download it?  It looks interesting - any good?

-----------------------

I went to download the game to only find out it comes out April 10th.

Can find more infor about the game "Lead and Gold" here

http://tinyurl.com/ydv9hd7

Why Nips?  Nip = Nippon = City in Japan.  Just another abbreviation as far as I know.

Posted by: alexthedude at March 28, 2010 07:17 PM (BPS1V)

My bad Nippon is a native name for Japan.  So if anything, Nip is more multicultural and sensitive than Jap.    It's all in how you use it though.

All that matters of the 100,000 or 10,000 was that that douchebag Kurt Vonnegat wasn't one of them.

Posted by: Ben at March 28, 2010 07:17 PM (jvBhz)

Not a whole lot of folks died initially when the nukes were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki either. Radiation killed more people afterwards than the actual explosions did. The Japanese however made their buildings mostly out of wood and paper at the time so anything incendiary set off in one of their cities would cause widespread havoc. We also firebombed Tokyo and a few other Japanese cities and it was even worse than Dresden and Hamburg.

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2010 07:21 PM (0GFWk)

With some referee assistance.  Just like the good ol' days.

Posted by: FUBAR at March 28, 2010 07:11 PM (1fanL) "

LOL.  I guess our opinions may vary, hmmm? 

He played a total douchebag in "Band of Brothers" quite well.  Maybe it wasn't "acting"???

All war films are anti-war films. There is no other way to portray it in a truthful, free society.

That doesn't mean the war wasn't just and necessary. But it's not irrelevant that a just war is usually fought with a country that made pro-war films before the war actually broke out.

As evidenced by  In the Valley of Elah, Stoploss, Brothers, Rendition, Home of the Brave, Redacted, Lions for Lambs, In the Valley of Wolves, War Inc...etc etc.

I would kill for one good pro troop and realistic(eliminates Hurtlocker) war film.  We can't even luck out like we did with Black Hawk down which was meant to be anti-war(not in the good sense that war is brutal, but in the only american war is bad) but turned out to be a very good film that showed the troops how the majority of them actually are in real life, loyal, honorable, and willing to kill or die for the man standing next to them.

He played a total douchebag in "Band of Brothers" quite well.  Maybe it wasn't "acting"???

Posted by: experience smeperience at March 28, 2010 07:25 PM (8mpdw)

Yeah, he did hate-able very well.  But he was basically Ross, wasn't he?  A whiny little pussy who sometimes pretended to have a spine.  Yeah, he was more of a douchebag in BoB, but it wasn't much of a stretch.

I'm just funnin' with you anyway.

I'm not impressed.  It is nowhere near as good as Band of Brothers, especially the acting.  I probably won't bother watching more.  As for the stupid idea that racism had anything to do with anything.  So we wouldn't have been just as pissed off and brutal if White people had bombed Pearl Harbor?  Our viewpoint was based on the fact we were attacked, while in Europe we thought of it as aiding an ally, a huge difference.  Several members of my family served in the Pacific and a couple in Europe.  There really is no comparison between the two theaters.  Of course there's the obvious fact that much of it took place in very small areas.  Then there is the absolute dedication of the Japanese soldier.  It was a holy war to them.  You never saw that from the Germans. My one uncle said he came upon three Japanese soldiers that had booby-trapped their bodies and then commited suicide.  And even though I was just a baby during the war, my brother had dozens of comic books portraying the Germans just as brutal and disgusting as the Japanese.  I don't know how old you are XBradTC but no one that I knew, they have all passed away, ever thought of the Japanese as anything other than the enemy.  Oh, and one cousin died in the Bataan death march...enough said...f### Tom Hanks.

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2010 07:12 PM (0GFWk)

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2010 07:21 PM (0GFWk)

With some referee assistance.  Just like the good ol' days.

Posted by: FUBAR at March 28, 2010 07:24 PM (1fanL)

+1

Yeah, he did hate-able very well.  But he was basically Ross, wasn't he?  A whiny little pussy who sometimes pretended to have a spine.  Yeah, he was more of a douchebag in BoB, but it wasn't much of a stretch.

I'm just funnin' with you anyway.

Posted by: FUBAR at March 28, 2010 07:31 PM (1fanL)

I'm just funnin' with you anyway."

I figured you were funnin' me....  But yeah, if frigging Ross is a better actor than anyone in "The Pacific", that's not a good sign....  (and I loved "Friends")

Posted by: Crank at March 28, 2010 07:28 PM (RMalK)

The German-on-Russian barbarity was as bad as anything in the Pacific, I figure, but the German-Western behavior was what passed for civilized in that war.

The savagery in the Pacific was because of the Japs.  They wouldn't surrender when the battle was lost.  They thought they were racially better than anyone else. 

I never understood how the Japs and the Germans got along when each thought the other was an inferior race.

"111 Forgot to add, along with others, that this series is nowhere near as compelling, nor do the characters grab you, as well as BoB."

Even if you don't compare this one with BoB, it still sucks ass.

Now, when Churchill called the Germans 'Huns', that was, like, way harsh.

It was actually Kaiser Wilhelm II's fault. He used the term and it stuck throughout the First World War.

I prefer the term Kraut and I've never been a big fan of the English naming: Jerry, Tommy, Charlie, Sammy, Ivan, etc.

I did like the French  "boche"

Posted by: AD at March 28, 2010 07:32 PM (vMq5s)

So it was a fine and dandy figure for historians to use until the guy who estimated those losses turns out to be a douche who pissed off the establishment and they then came up with some new politically correct ones?

Wow, that really inspires confidence!

"The German-on-Russian barbarity was as bad as anything in the Pacific, I figure, but the German-Western behavior was what passed for civilized in that war."

No shit.  I'm reading "The 900 Days" which chronicles the Siege of Leningrad.  And sweet merciful crap, it was BRU-TAL.

Which is why I hope the Eastern front of WWII (Russia vs. Germany) is the next miniseries.

Posted by: AD at March 28, 2010 07:32 PM (vMq5s)

Posted by: rdbrewer at March 28, 2010 07:33 PM (D8NGt)

He's a serious reporter.  Wasn't it AC who discovered poverty still existed in America thanks to Katrina?  So it wasn't a total loss.

Posted by: XBradTC at March 28, 2010 07:33 PM (cB95w)

Source, please

The 92nd Div had two days of 'combat' in northern Italy.  Either they ran away or were deserted by their drunk incompetent White officers--depending on which side you believe.

  Either way, they were pulled  off the line and not used in combat again.

"There was a level of savagery in the Pacific that the European theater, for all its wholesale carnage, never achieved."

I highly recommend you listen to "Hardcore History" podcasts by Dan Carlin about the Eastern Front of WWII.

The Western Front was a war to be sure, but nothing compared to the total and utter brutality on the Eastern Front.  I guess when it's asshole (Hitler) vs. asshole (Stalin), all bets are off.

Posted by: XBradTC at March 28, 2010 07:39 PM (cB95w)

Posted by: Flavius Julius at March 28, 2010 07:38 PM (IrdrP)

We bought this infidel blog !!  All you blogs is belong to us !!!!

no more pudding...............

Posted by: AD at March 28, 2010 07:43 PM (vMq5s)

Normally I love this kind of shit... but can't bring myself to watch it..

I feel I would be dishonoring my two uncles who saw some horrendous shit..yet never ...never...painted the Japanese with the broad racist brush (I probably would have)

What I gather from Hanks comments is that yeah..they were great commited fighting men and women...but were just idiots who were motivated out of racial hatred...the already well-documented atrocities by the Japanese military notwithstanding

Fuck him...I hope he and HBO lose money on it

Posted by: CoolCzech at March 28, 2010 07:44 PM (9IHmo)

That's the great part.  You can enjoy the carnage on both sides.  No suspense, it doesn't matter who's left standing in the end.

I saw a show on the Military (or History) Channel about the lady snipers of the USSR during WW2.  Hawt.

Well, file this under "shit I didn't know before today"

They named their group the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (I.S.S.). Governing and membership rules were established. Officers were chosen and goals were identified:

1. Promote an intelligent interest in Socialism among college men and women [1];
2. Familiarize students with the inherent evils of American economic and social system based on laissez-faire policies [2];
3. Promote the establishment of a socialist order [2].

The I.S.S. determined to achieve its goals in three ways: organize I.S.S. chapters on college campuses; graduate socialist adherents into society; and permeate labor unions, schools, and government with their followers.

Initial efforts met with resistance, as socialism was despised in America at this time. But with persistence and occasional obfuscation, I.S.S. chapters were soon formed at Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton, and by 1917, there were 61 college campus chapters and twelve alumni groups.

Wow.

Posted by: Blazer at March 28, 2010 07:48 PM (t72+4)

I deliberately steered Hitler away from The Bomb, I tell you!  And what thanks do I get?

Posted by: CoolCzech at March 28, 2010 07:44 PM (9IHmo)

Posted by: Flavius Julius at March 28, 2010 07:51 PM (IrdrP)

That was after the war.  We made our own.  And I think it was a Jap sub headed for Germany.

Hey, all you PCers. Get over it. Japs is good enough for me. As a Pollock I will tell you to go FY'.

And another thing, without the A Bomb Nippon would still be a smoking blackened island and the language forgotten. Those Japs were arming kids with sachel charges (you may call them suicide bombers) and women with bamboo spears. Not only did we save a million US casulties but Japan itself.

Remeber who was invading...5 Marine divisions that had suffered Tarawa, Okinawa, Iwo etc etc.

My deceased Marine Uncle called them Jap Bastards.

I don't have a problem with saying it either, Ed.

You use WIKI as a source?  Doing a high school term paper?

I was talking about the entire division being used as one entity; the 442nd RCT was autonomous and there was one other RCT which operated mostly apart from the rest of the 92nd.  Being autonomous, they saw significantly more action.

As a division, what I said about the 92nd was correct.  They were a disorganized mess.

60 Dresden and Hamburg got it just just as bad as any Japanese city that had a nuke dropped on it.

Exactly. If it weren't for the use of atomic weapons, I think they would all be treated the same by historians. But the pictures from Dresden & Hamburg are rather chilling. No outlines of people on the pavement (or later evidence of nuclear fall-out), mind you, but still grotesque.

/Both were still necessary.

I deliberately steered Hitler away from The Bomb, I tell you!  And what thanks do I get?

Posted by: Werner Heisenberg at March 28, 2010 07:50 PM (1fanL)

It always amazes me that a group of people who insist that war is the most evil, inhumane thing imaginable can turn around and immediately wax indignant about the fact that one group of people wasn't given a equal opportunity to experience it. How do libs pull that off without having their heads implode?  And why do we let them get away with it?

I'm liking the series so far- it's not Band of Brothers good, but it's still worth watching.  The concerns caused by the simpleton Hank's idiotic comments that it would be a moral-equivalency-fest don't appear to be warranted.

Considering the era and the animosity I don't find the notion that our own guys may not have always been overly gracious and professional to their Japanese enemy totally far-fetched.  No point in denying that institutional racism (on all sides) was commonplace back then.  American soldiers weren't nearly as brutal as the Japanese, but it's plausible that there were isolated incidents like the one in Part One where they appear to be wounding a Japanese solider for sport.

It looks like they did try to keep it fairly realistic (not that any of us would really know for certain).  If that means the good is shown with some of the bad, so be it.  From what I've seen, Americans and her soldiers are being portrayed in a positive light overall.

Thank God we got all of the best and the brightest out of Europe before the Third Reich overtook it.

we got a good portion, but not all. Just look at their rocketry and jet technology. The Germans were without question one of the most scientifically advances society in the world. And lets not forget about their ability to make weapons. The MG42 was and is arguably the greatest machine gun ever made. Isn't our M60 a quasi rip off of it? Also, despite what the Russkies say, the AK 47 was a rip off of the STG-44.  The K98 was probably the best bolt action rifle ever made and even our Springfield was a ripoff of that. Hell the German 88s were the greatest artillery pieces of the war, that isn't even up for debate.

Their tanks, while not easily produced, made mince meat of most British and American tanks. Had it not been for our ability to produce tanks faster than they could destroy them, it is unlikely the war would have ended as quickly or the invasion of france been successful.

The Germans were cutting edge when it came to Land and Air war, however, since they didn't have much of a history as a seafaring nation, they never were able to build an extremely effective surface navy.

Posted by: XBradTC at March 28, 2010 07:42 PM

If you are going to kill people and witness people being killed that is something you must do.  But the Germans carried it to an extreme with the concentration camps and the Japanese went even further with their concept of a holy war and their racism.  The Germans understood and admired the American soldiers, the Japanese thought of them as no better than animals and devils. As I said in an earlier post, many in my family served amd died during the war.  That said, the other side of the family hate the Russians for their brutality because they witnessed it first hand after the war.  And then there are the family and friends who survived, or not, Vietnam.  So I still say..f### Tom Hanks.

Exactly. If it weren't for the use of atomic weapons, I think they would all be treated the same by historians. But the pictures from Dresden & Hamburg are rather chilling. No outlines of people on the pavement (or later evidence of nuclear fall-out), mind you, but still grotesque.

/Both were still necessary.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 28, 2010 07:55 PM (yfJ6g)

 " Japanese should be a language spoken only in Hell. "

I like that.

171 I read a story once that described some of the victims of Dresden actually boiling in asphalt after the streets literally turned to liquid while they were running around in panic and people flying directly into the belly of the firestorm after it achieved 300 + mph winds.

Brutal yes, but war is hell.

(1) Heard that, too. Read the reports as well. People flew into the firestorm & disappeared as they were disintegrated or turned to ashes.

(2) "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it."

I can't really muster any guilt for the potential racist treatment of the Japanese when I think about the Rape of Nanking. Also, look up Unit 731 if you have a strong stomach. The Japanese did things there that would've made Dr. Mengele jealous. Human experimentation on a par with what went on in Nazi concentration camps. And the Japanese government has never apologized for any of it. So, yeah, I don't really feel sorry at any of it. Just glad we won. I wish we still fought wars that way - balls to the wall without worrying about our enemy's feelings.

Actually comparing  Unit 731 to the Nazis isn't a perfect  The Nazi experiments seemed to be more needless and sadistic, tests with twins, injecting dye into peoples eyes, whereas the experiments by Iishi Shiro at  Harbin actually had medical value, that is partially why we tried to get as much of the documentation as possible and gave most of the doctors clemency after the war. He was essentially doing what any doctor without any sense of morality or restraint would love to do, use acutally humans as test subjects.

That is not to say that some of what they did was crazy and of little value, but most of it had merits(not an endorsement of it by me). I mean imagine how much faster cures would be found, or how much better we could understand diseases or viruses if we could use humans as test subjects instead of rats, pigs etc.   For moral reasons I am against it, obviously, but you can't argue against the logic that it would be easier to understand how something affects humans by using humans.

again, please don't read that as Ben is for using humans in medical testing and vivesections. I am simply stating that it had more scientific value than say Mengele trying to make people have twins or injecting their eyes with dye to make them blue, or moving to Brazil in a elaborate plan to clone hitler only to be foiled when Steve Guttenberg stumbles onto his plot.

Flavius, asshole,

thanks for dropping some cues about who you are and where you are.

Now go away puddin.

7 members of a B-29 killed were vivisected.Alive.With no anaesthetic.

I read a great book about Unit 731, but can't think of the name. They didn't give anyone anaesthetic.

...thanks for dropping some cues about who you are and where you are.

Who is he, and where is he, Columbo?

oh and just one more thing...

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 28, 2010 08:15 PM (yfJ6g)

Didn't know about that!

Posted by: XBradTC at March 28, 2010 08:01 PM (cB95w)

It's good that you read a 'popular history'; maybe you can move on to a graphic novel.

Again, your Wiki source does not contradict what I said.  You yell 'shit' when backed into a corner; good move.

Also, if any of you are interested in what the Allied plans were had the Japanese not surrended, read the book  CODENAME DOWNFALL by Thomas Allen and Norman Polmar. It goes over the allied planned invasion of mainland Japan.

It also gives great insight into how little America, or anyone really understood the atom bomb and its full effects on people. Part of the plan was to nuke the landing site before the amphibious invasion.

"ration of shit "

I looked that up on wiki, and there is NO definition of that ration to speak of dork!

193 The casualty rates were incredibly high. I've seen the picture with the skull & helmit with the sign saying "Danger! Move Fast!"

/http://tinyurl.com/yg8pjmx

Posted by: Alaska Paul at March 28, 2010 08:19 PM (kznYI)

--A friend of mine from college worked summers with a Viet Name vet who was always a little on edge from that expeience.  He also told him that the worst thing he had ever smelled was burning human flesh.

197 Didn't know about that!

IIRC, GHW Bush was the only one of the 9 who made it out alive.

Read Reribution by Max Hastings and he has no sympathy for the Japanese.He mentions at the end how the Japanese never apologized or made any reperations to victims like the Germans did.Since Hirohito was allowed to remain nEmperor they took it to mean they were absolved and acted accordingly.We should have hanged him.

When reading Hastings work you can't help but notice the hard on he gets for the german fighting man.

Also, it is understandable that we swept everything under the rug for the Japanese. We without question covered up as much as we could of what happened in Harbin. We didn't have much of an option. 1. We needed the Japanese as allies against the Soviets, who were a much greater threat to us. and almost as important 2. It became clear by 1946(or even before that) that our "allies" the Chinese were going to become our enemy. So why would we destroy our relationship with our new ally, Japan, for the sake of our old ally and now enemy, china.

The Japanese gave no quarter.

No, they didn't, but they did give qualtel.

ok Ed, you can punch me for that one.

On this subject, did anyone see that state rep in new england who when talking about the subject of Anime said and i quote, "Two nukes just wasn't enough".

I have also heard that battle fatigue was higher in the Pacific than it was in Europe.

Still don't understand why it is more "respectful" among some to have fought in Europe than in Germany. The heroes should be treated the same.

_{/FTR, 1 great-grandfather & his 4 BILs were in the Navy & fought in the Pacific.}   

Posted by: Carl in Rosemead at March 28, 2010 08:36 PM (BiCQw)

Well, if you were one of the guys hitting the beach you might be willing to trade the chance of cancer in 30 years for a clear run up to the beaches!

 Who would have ever guessed that our ally in WWI would do a sneak attack on us at Pearl Harbor and invade and occupy our other pacific territory, the PI.

Must have been because Americans are racists.

This also neglects the fact that the American government was just as if not more concerned that it would be at war with the British Empire in the 1920s and 1930s as  a RESULT of our alliances with Japan. I think it was called War Plan Red

I have also heard that battle fatigue was higher in the Pacific than it was in Europe.

Still don't understand why it is more "respectful" among some to have fought in Europe than in Germany. The heroes should be treated the same.

I would much rather have died in the fields of France, Belgium or Germany than some shithole Island in the Pacific.   Europe looks a lot like America, geographically, so it would have been a lot more like dying where you lived than in the pacific. Also, the conditions would have been far better in Europe than in the pacific. you don't have to worry about malaria, heat stroke, shit like that.

I'm just sick of "The Greatest Generation" crap.

The WWI generation was the greatest generation. They suffered twice as many casualties in one year of war as the United States suffered in ten years in Vietnam. WWI veterans upon their return were also exposed to deadly influenza and 1/3 were infected with the clap. They also suffered through an economic depression, race riots, "Red Scares", and no beer (Volstead Act).

Posted by: someguy at March 28, 2010 07:11 PM (VRJIW)

I'd also like to point out this is equally true of any country more then about 100 years old.

Abolitionism should be considered a far greater societal breakthrough then it is. And France, Britain, and the US should get credit for it...

Must have been because Americans are racists.

It's true. They are.

The WWI generation was the greatest generation. They suffered twice as many casualties in one year of war as the United States suffered in ten years in Vietnam. WWI veterans upon their return were also exposed to deadly influenza and 1/3 were infected with the clap. They also suffered through an economic depression, race riots, "Red Scares", and no beer (Volstead Act).

Many also sent their sons off to fight WWII.

Hey Ace...kinda overlooked the 8th Marine Ammunition Company of the 5th Marines didn't ya.

Ace hasn't made an appearance here. But I didn't say African Americans didn't serve. I said they were mostly in support roles. Yes, there were exceptions, such as the Tuskegee Airmen, the 91st and 92nd Divisions, and the 761st Tank Bn.

But most Blacks that served were prohibited from direct combat roles, much as women today are. That's not to say they didn't serve honorable, just that the forces weren't integrated as they are today.

Toward the end of the campaign in Europe, as there was a severe shortage of riflemen, some blacks in support roles were allowed to join the infantry and serve, either in black companies, or even black platoons. At the end of the war in Europe, it wasn't unheard of for a platoon to have a black squad. But that was hardly complete integration.

_________________________________________________________

And all of you concerned types can thank Pres. Wilson for that. We were intergrated before then.

Posted by: Ben at March 28, 2010 08:40 PM (jvBhz)

--I read the Washington Post story on it when it was declassified.  I had to laugh at the parts about a threat of invasion up the Red River from Winnipeg.

But then, that was pre-pussy/multiculti Canada.

225 That doesn't mean it should be any less an honour to have served in the Pacific, though. Not saying that you said that, but some people treat it like that's the case. It's as if the Pacific is the forgotten theatre until you mention the atomic bombs, & everyone is ready to condemn without knowing the history.

I'm just sick of "The Greatest Generation" crap.

The WWI generation was the greatest generation. They suffered twice as many casualties in one year of war as the United States suffered in ten years in Vietnam. WWI veterans upon their return were also exposed to deadly influenza and 1/3 were infected with the clap. They also suffered through an economic depression, race riots, "Red Scares", and no beer (Volstead Act).

Posted by: Dirk Diggler at March 28, 2010 08:43 PM (CjSk6)

Posted by: Blazer at March 28, 2010 08:50 PM (t72+4)

You crack me up blazer, well said.

238 Hastings calls them "The generation that great things happened too"or something similar. In other words they were very much like you and me only lived in momentous times.

I think we should include their parents, too. Imagine surviving WWI & thinking that there would never be another war, only to have to send your own sons off to fight another.

Posted by: XBradTC at March 28, 2010 08:45 PM (cB95w)

In your opinion, XBrad, is this a professional ,worthwhile post?

I don't have any 'concerns'.  Again, for the fourth time, your Wiki source does not contradict what I said. 

As a division ( not including its two mostly-autonomous RCTs ), the 92nd spent little time in combat and there were a long series of  bitterly-disputed charges and counter-charges about what actually happened.  I voiced no opinion regarding who did what and have no point of view.

I know only what I read in several histories, some JAG files, and the first-hand account of a career Army officer who served as a 2LT in the 92nd while they were in Italy.  I spoke to him in 1971, just as he retired.

Again, have a very nice day........

252 Did Tom Hanks ever "revise" his statement, or has he gone full-Biden with his racial comment?

IIRC, it was a "I'm sorry, but..." statement. Worthless semi-apology.

You crack me up blazer, well said.

Posted by: robtr at March 28, 2010 08:53 PM (fwSHf)

"They call 'em the greatest generation because not only did they hand the Germans and Japanese their asses and then send this great nation into the longest period of sustained growth and prosperity man ever known, but they also handed the Chinese and the Norks their asses too and then handed the Soviets and Cubans their asses during the Cold War and then they went and put a man on the moon.

The Fucking Moon !"

 What about the generation that fought and died for nothing more than a fucking idea at Bunker Hill, Trenton, and Yorktown. That thirteen colonies on the other side of the world had a right to determine their own destiny? What about their efforts to forge a more perfect union which inevitably resulted in our Constitution?

 What about the generation that bled rivers of blood at Bull Run and Gettysburg? All for preserving the Union from dissolution. What about that same generation that headed out west after the war and tranformed a wilderness into a modern nation? 

Claiming that one generation in American history is the "Greatest Generation" is just asinine. WWII vets themselves don't even embrace the appellation.  

Posted by: kidney at March 28, 2010 09:03 PM (t0IeR)

--Don't forget taking starved prisoners, pouring raw rice into them, then giving them water to burst their stomachs.  That was a nice touch too.

Did Tom Hanks ever "revise" his statement, or has he gone full-Biden with his racial comment?

Methinks Hanks is confused with Liberal nonsense talk. I believe he can be persuaded back to the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Some wars are too close to talk about.

Posted by: Ray-man at March 28, 2010 09:00 PM (wszTk)

Well said, Ray-man.  I get so tired of this revisionist history that people like to engage in, these days.  They try and analyze events in the past as if they are happening right now.  If people go to any foreign country they will find racial and ethnic epithets used as part of normal discourse all over the place (outside of the politically correct, hermedically sealed world of the West, which just likes to pretend that all people are the same exact faceless blob without any characteristics not chared by every other faceless blob).

Hanks is a total idiot and anyone who tries to defend the slimebag is equally idiotic.  I wouldn't watch a Hanks production if you paid me - even though I enjoyed some of his past projects.  They're just movies.  Nothing more.  If Hanks didn't exist, the world wouldn't know the difference.  And shunning that self-hating POS is what America's reaction to him should be, in my mind.

Posted by: steevy at March 28, 2010 09:07 PM (Ny7Tb)

fuck blazer, my beer is all over my keyboard and screen now.

 What about the generation that bled rivers of blood at Bull Run and Gettysburg? All for preserving the Union from dissolution. What about that same generation that headed out west after the war and tranformed a wilderness into a modern nation? 

Claiming that one generation in American history is the "Greatest Generation" is just asinine. WWII vets themselves don't even embrace the appellation.  

Posted by: Dirk Diggler at March 28, 2010 09:08 PM (CjSk6)

Claiming that one generation in American history is the "Greatest Generation" is just asinine. WWII vets themselves don't even embrace the appellation.  

Posted by: Dirk Diggler at March 28, 2010 09:08 PM (CjSk6)

Actually, IIRC, that "greatest generation" label was just a gaffe that Bush made during a speech that people picked up on.  I remember seeing the speech and knowing (assuming) that he forgot the phrase he really wanted to use (as "greatest generation" sounded so clunky and silly), but I can't recall it all anymore, as "greatest generation" got absorbed into the popular lexicon - for some reason.

The Greatest Generation raised the most spoiled generation, too...

never aim low.

The Japanese are still among the most racist groups in the world.  They have always viewed themselves as destined to rule the Asian peoples (being far superior to the rest) and, to this day, won't grant citizenship to Korean families that have lived and worked in Japan for generations.

--To the extent that's it's racially motivated, yeah, it's not the most noble of intentions, but insofar as the Japanese are asserting their right to preserve their culture and take it upon themselves who gets to be a citizen and who does not (without giving a shit about pablum like "coming out of the shadows") --i.e., enforcing their borders and having a vigorous immigration policy-- I say, more power to 'em.

Can't believe a poster at AOS buys the "they were different looking and culturally different so we had to annihilate them" BS.  Have you ever heard of the CBI theater?  That was in the Pacific, too.  In the CBI, allied forces (including my father) were fighting to PROTECT China and India from the Japanese.  I am not aware of ANY way in which the Japanese were more culturally different or more different-looking from the average American soldier than either the Chinese or the Indian populations.  Even within the American ranks we had people who were pretty culturally different, too.  You had American soldiers who had grandfathers and great-grandfathers on opposite sides in the Civil War fighting next to each other.  You had Southern Baptists, Jews, and Catholics fighting next to each other.  And, as previously mentioned, the American army also had Japanese soldiers, whom to my recollection, were not set upon and annihilated by their fellow Americans.

The Japanese are dying out. Who cares about the current generation?

The Land of the Setting Sun.

269 My great-grandmother felt the same way until she died 2yrs ago at 102.* Revisionism has been successful at taking statements out of their context. I know we don't talk about the Pacific much because the Japanese are now are allies, but we should discuss it in the context of past evils.

* Like I mentioned earlier, her husband & 4 brothers had been in the Pacific during WWII. Don't know how they felt/feel--they were/are quite reticent people.

The Greatest Generation raised the most spoiled generation, too...

never aim low.

Posted by: Who Knows at March 28, 2010 09:16 PM (aE/nJ)

Posted by: steevy at March 28, 2010 09:16 PM (Ny7Tb)

Well, it has to be more than that as the Maronite Arabs and Christian Africans don't buy the western line any more than the others.

Blazer, you are a man among men, and a wordsmith.

I'm personally a bit pissed off to here about this miniseries not measuring up to BoB (which I liked, even with my husband extolling the virtues of Army Rangers in my ears -- constantly, or so it seemed to me).  "Finally!" I thought, "my league of amphibious brethern...my beloved Corps (pronounced correctly, I might add) will get some of the respect they so richly deserve; they too shall be remembered just like the Army was in BoB, and the Pacific theater will finally get the attention it so richly deserves, after years of neglect (did I mention my entire frakking family outside one tank driver was in the frakking Pacific?)".  Finally, to riff off Rodney D., some respect.

And then this...  I'll probably hear more shit about Army Rangers from the DH too (if I don't beat him with a tire iron for it).  Jfcoamls, no freaking respect -- they couldn't even do at least almost as good as BoB. (I should have seen it coming, Marines are like Hollyweird's favorite kick ball).  Yes, I am pissed and a bit butt hurt over this. (and while I love all you Army folks out there, and anyone else in the service...I'm seriously going to get a spousal abuse charge if my darling husband makes one more quip).

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 28, 2010 09:24 PM (yfJ6g)

Because we can blame Bush for EVERYTHING!!!!

Didn't you know he was the one who ordered the bomb-drop on Hiroshima? The Rape of Nanjing? The Black Hole of Calcutta? The burning of Atlanta? The....

--To the extent that's it's racially motivated, yeah, it's not the most noble of intentions, but insofar as the Japanese are asserting their right to preserve their culture and take it upon themselves who gets to be a citizen and who does not (without giving a shit about pablum like "coming out of the shadows") --i.e., enforcing their borders and having a vigorous immigration policy-- I say, more power to 'em.

Posted by: logprof at March 28, 2010 09:16 PM (Mmw0q)

I agree with you, logprof.  It's their country and they can do whatever they want to preserve it the way they like it.  I think the Japanese have every right to decide who they want to extend citizenship to, no matter the circumstances.  But, when idiots like Hanks and his fans are claiming that Americans are so bad and racist, it just helps to point out the vast differences in who we let in versus the poor, widdle Japanese who were beaten by the big, bad, racist America.

Of course, when a family is in your country, invited and LEGALLY, for three whole generations ... well ... that's just a whole other level that Hanks and his fans need to take a look at before they try and badmouth the US.

National sovereignty is an important issue that every nation must vigorously defend, but the Japanese case goes well beyond that, I would say.  Then again, the Koreans can just go back to Korea, if they were really bothered by the situation. 

Always glad to see MPFS.

How is it these days?

Posted by: mpfs at March 28, 2010 09:26 PM (QuP9W)

It was a play on the use of the term 'Jap' that's being discussed here.  I guess if I have to explain it, it wasn't funny.

Nevermind...back to my book....

Posted by: mpfs at March 28, 2010 09:26 PM (QuP9W)

It was a play on the use of the term 'Jap' that's being discussed here.  I guess if I have to explain it, it wasn't funny.

Nevermind...back to my book....

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 28, 2010 09:24 PM (yfJ6g)

My mistake. I thought that book came out after, but I was badly mistaken.  So Brokaw coined that awfully silly phrase.  I'm glad to hear that, actually.  It was in one of Bush's speeches that I had heard the term for the first time and I thought it was a gaffe.  It sounded awful, to me, aesthetically.  I remember that feeling distinctly.

I'm glad it wasn't Bush's.  Thanks, Miss80's.  Sorry for the mistake, folks.

Posted by: Benson at March 28, 2010 09:31 PM (qzcNU)

--Well if it's on HBO that means they left their shirts/bras on while doing it.

Posted by: Ray-man at March 28, 2010 09:21 PM (wszTk)

The Japanese are pretty damned smart and are willing to suck up a bit to gain in the end.  I'm just surprised that more groups around the world don't copy the people who are in the lead.

Personally, I have no problem with any group thinking they are the best.  Aside from the fact that it would just be a total joke for many to take this view, as they cannot give any justifications for such thoughts, for those who do perform it is a perfectly understandable position and one they have earned, frankly, if they so desire.

316 He's a friend of this site that also posts at The Hostages. Was in the Army. (All that, IIRC.) 

/Hope that's not saying too much.

BamBam has to ruin the Final Four once again - he's going to be interviewed by CBS this week, shoot some hoops, and they're going to show clips throughout the weekend during the games:

http://tinyurl.com/yhe7zhh

So it is unacceptable to use a racial slur if one observes members of a single race bayoneting a city's old women...of another race?

Weird.

Posted by: Ray-man at March 28, 2010 09:30 PM (wszTk)

I was the one who said it.  I was 30 years off on that?  I was a few years off on the introduction of the "greatest generation" phrase.  I'm calling it a night before I get a century off on something.

BamBam has to ruin the Final Four once again - he's going to be interviewed by CBS this week, shoot some hoops, and they're going to show clips throughout the weekend during the games:

http://tinyurl.com/yhe7zhh

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at March 28, 2010 09:43 PM (yQG/+)

That's cool, I was wanting to go fishing on the penninsula next weekend anyways. Thanks CBS!

Posted by: Blazer at March 28, 2010 09:14 PM

There is no greatest generation.  I can name dozens and dozens of things equally impressive done by preceding generations....flight, telephone, telegraph, cars, etc.   Each generation leads to the next one and without their accomplishments the other generations would have nothing. People are born everyday that will someday achieve greatness.  It isn't something that comes along in only one generation and for Tom Brokaw and you to imply that it is, is..well insulting. 

Posted by: progressoverpeace at March 28, 2010 09:46 PM (Qp4DT)

Don't sweat it. That's why pencils have erasers....

Oh, wait. You're not using a pencil.

Have a good evening!

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at March 28, 2010 09:43 PM (yQG/+)

--Fuck.  No escape from that bungmunch.

And, where the hell is the Crist-Rubio thread?

Maybe I'm just getting old because, although I don't care for Crist, Rubio came off like some fast-talking whipper-snapper who wanted to put his two-cents into everything, including Crist's own future political aspirations.

My grandfather's generation (WWI) thought that my father's generation (WWII) was a bunch of jalopy-poving fuckups. And I'm sure my great grandfather thought that his son's ragtime-loving Jazz baby generation was a bunch of fuckups, too.

The generation that they all were in awe of was the Civil War generation.

My father spoke of awe about seeing a small column of Civil War vets at a July 4th parade when he was a kid.

Both my parents fought in WWII and my mom was a combat nurse  (Captain)in the South Pacific and my dad was a combat soldier in Europe.

And I've read that the pre-Civil War generation was in awe of the Revolutionary War generation. I remember seeing something about this in an old 1930's Abraham Lincoln movie.

Shit, it never ends...

There is no greatest generation.  I can name dozens and dozens of things equally impressive done by preceding generations....flight, telephone, telegraph, cars, etc.   Each generation leads to the next one and without their accomplishments the other generations would have nothing. People are born everyday that will someday achieve greatness.  It isn't something that comes along in only one generation and for Tom Brokaw and you to imply that it is, is..well insulting. 

Posted by: Deanna at March 28, 2010 09:50 PM (JXlgX)

Jebus, peeps! Its just an appellation that stuck. Who cares if they were called the Greatest Generation? Before Brokaw's book they were known as the G.I. Generation. Every generation gets a handle or two slung on it, some stick, others dont. I was born in 66, also known as the Gen X, Baby Busters, 13th Generation. This stuff is done by sociologist and pop culture writers who want to have their term coined.

So it is unacceptable to use a racial slur if one observes members of a single race bayoneting a city's old women...of another race?

Weird.

This is a strange deal. Similar to the fact that you can beat the living hell out of someone and get a lesser charge than if you do the same while yelling insults at your victim.

Once stopped a beating in a theater. I dropped the F bomb while doing so. There was a lady from my church there. She has looked at me funny ever since.

 Let's face it, we were a country that wouldn't even allow blacks to fight...

Lick my balls...

Posted by: Jean at March 28, 2010 09:53 PM (CPefM)

Well not entirely. There were Muslim Waffen SS divisions, and the Mufti of Jerusalem spent the war in Berlin where he recommended exterminating the Jews. Later he went on to help in the attack on Israel in 1948 so it seems they did learn some lessons from what happened... just not the ones they perhaps should have.

I've always wondered...

WTH does elevety eleven mean?

I've always wondered...

WTH does elevety eleven mean?

Posted by: jmflynny at March 28, 2010 10:05 PM (x3ghH)

Seconded! What does it mean?

Hey Xbradtc,

Ever here of the rape of Nanching, the Bataan deathmarch, or the fall of Singapore???  The Japanese did things only rivaled by Hitler and the SS...Don't try to compare segregation of US Armed Forces with genocide...You're a fucking worthless tool.  I hope we don't hear from you again.

Just don't give out my home phone number.

The last number on my list to call for historical research past waht Slick taught Monica.

Alrighty then:  Episode 3

SUCKED!!eleventy11!!11

I literally thought we were watching a Lifetime made for TV movie.

God bless the Marines.  And fuck Tom Hanks et al for this abortion of a story about the Marines in the Pacific.

I am so pissed. I think it is time to start brining up the Pearl Harbor comparisons.

I have a feeling Basilone will be the main character because he is a phantom character. Sure he existed, but only in records, if i am not mistaken he didn't write a  memoir or book. So his charcter gives the writers and directors the freedom to write whatever story they want.

I didn't watch this series to see a story about a Greek Austrialian. This was so fucking stupid that i am going to continue to use profanity. You have ten episodes to tell the story of a theater of war that cost millions of lives, and you spent 10% of it on a made up love story that was so pathetic. Honestly what kind of parents invite a guy into their home to fuck their daughter, knowing full well he will be leaving in a few days??

WTH does elevety eleven mean?

Folks spitting mad sometimes hit "1" instead of "!" in a string of "!!!!!!!!11!!!!

I've always wondered...

WTH does elevety eleven mean?

Posted by: jmflynny at March 28, 2010 10:05 PM (x3ghH)

Seconded! What does it mean?

i'm not sure. I remember it from a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip, when calvin is studying imaginary numbers, like eleventy.

303 My dad was an Iwo vet, and he hated Sands...probably not the best thing to be showing him in that VA hospital.  Ah, the memories of rushing in to switch the channel when that came up on the Sunday afternoon movie matinee...before he killed the tv.

And for what it's worth, my dad had a grudging, left handed respect for the Japanese, as he considered them man for man to be the tougher opponent.  He admired, while at the same time loathing as its recipient, their "give no quarter, ask for none, no surrender" attitude -- thought they understood the primal concept of war very clearly: "destroy your enemy, with extreme prejudice".  You'd have to know my dad, but coming from him that was a bit of a compliment.  I don't think it was racism.

Folks spitting mad sometimes hit "1" instead of "!" in a string of "!!!!!!!!11!!!!

Now commonly done by teens, usually while using lolcatz.

Posted by: Senator Robert 'Sheets' Byrd at March 28, 2010 09:58 PM

I guess I get upset because there are so many in my family that I am proud of from each generation.  My father survived the Finnish Civil War and moved here at 17.  My father said that if he could have he would have enlisted in WWII, but an injury kept him out.  To him it was a great honor to serve. My uncle liberated Buchenwald, and I lost a cousin in the Bataan Death march.  I lost my fiancee in Vietnam.  And I spent time as a Freedom rider and marcher in Alabama.  Sorry, I guess I sound like I'm bragging but I doubt that my or your stories are unusual.  I like to think they're pretty common.  Have a good night.

377...

So, it's kind of like the "teh" thing.

Got it, and, admit that I've actually done it.

I have a feeling Basilone will be the main character because he is a phantom character. Sure he existed, but only in records, if i am not mistaken he didn't write a  memoir or book. So his charcter gives the writers and directors the freedom to write whatever story they want.

Posted by: Ben at March 28, 2010 10:07 PM (jvBhz)

I just read through a book on Basilone in the bookstore last night. Amazing guy. 

I just read through a book on Basilone in the bookstore last night. Amazing guy. 

is it written by him like Sledge's book? Or is it a biography?

Lemme think... a worse guest blogger than XBadTC..?

1.  Charles Johnson

2.  Paul Begala

3.  Bill Maher

4.   ..?

..?

So, it's kind of like the "teh" thing.

Got it, and, admit that I've actually done it.

Waht are you talking about?

/

Hey Xbradtc,

Ever here of the rape of Nanching, the Bataan deathmarch, or the fall of Singapore???  The Japanese did things only rivaled by Hitler and the SS...Don't try to compare segregation of US Armed Forces with genocide...You're a fucking worthless tool.  I hope we don't hear from you again.

Did I compare the Japanese to the Marines? No. I've not said one thing in defense of the Japanese. Not. One. Nor have I chided those who mention the racism that the Japanese showed in the war. Because it is true. 

What I said was I hope people wouldn't skip watching this series just because Tom Hanks said stupid shit before the premier.

If folks don't like the series, oh well. But how people suddenly think I'm pro-Axis, or not wholly supportive of our troops, I just don't know where you get that.

 Ben, Basilone didn't write a book. He was KIA later in the war.

ok. makes sense. Then i stick by my idea that they are going to make him the focus because he gives them the most leeway to use a creative license.

What did you think of the episode tonight Brad. I need someone to bitch about it too.

I haven't seen tonights episode yet. It's only 7:30.

you mean they don't play it on the west cost at 6? i always assumed the west coast watched everything we did but three hours earlier.

386 x Brad Total Crawfish

Bullshit piled even higher.  Go read a book(s).

rap.  So disappointed over this week's soap opera.  What a dis to the Marines in the Pacific.  Imagine if Hanks had done an ep like this to the guys on the front in Europe.  Let's peel off a main character in Band of Brothers and devote an entire fucking episode to him pursuing a young woman, with mom and pop giving their blessing to the arrangement. 

Damn. 

war movies should be about the war. I don't care who was fucking who on shore leave. Band of Brother did have a love interest. The New Orleanian Medic fell in love with the french nurse during the Bastogne episode, but no sex was needed. And it was far more romantic that tonights episode of The Pacific. Has anyone in their lives ever met parents who invite a guy to their house to screw their daughter knowing he will leave in a few days? Seriously, give me that family's number and address.

I have no problem with love scenes and understand there was sex during war, but you have ten episodes to tell the story of a 4 year brutal f'ing war and you spend one entire episode on a made up love tryst that wasn't romantic, entertaining, or enjoyable. I like romantic movies, A Very Long Engagement, is one of my favorite movies. It is the quality that matters. Someone here said it best, it felt like a Lifetime quality show.

Battle Cry also had a long sequence about the 1st MarDiv's time in Australia and NZ.

I agree that was an important part of the story of the 1st Marine Divsion, but that could have been told in 10-15 minutes. Honestly you will understand after watching tonight.

Clearly, the North American Flying Tigers voluntarily went to help Chinese and Korean (Asians) defend themselves against aginst an army of raping, murdering and medically experimenting Japanese (Asians) only due to our RACISM.

Twit.

Clearly, the North American Flying Tigers voluntarily went to help Chinese and Korean (Asians) defend themselves against aginst an army of raping, murdering and medically experimenting Japanese (Asians) only due to our RACISM.

Twit.

i think the point has been made repeatedly...leave the dead horse alone

What I said was I hope people wouldn't skip watching this series just because Tom Hanks said stupid shit before the premier.

Posted by: XBradTC at March 28, 2010 10:25 PM (cB95w)

What would Hanks have to say for you to think it appropriate not to sponsor him and his efforts?  It's just a series.  You can live without it.  But if you support Hanks (which you have gone overboard in doing, here, actually defending his idiocy) then you lend his idiotic views credibility that they most certainly do not deserve. 

Don't act as if this series is some Earth-shattering event that is so important that it can't fall on the self-hate and stupidity of its main producer (or whatever Hanks' connection is).  It isn't.  And that is even apart from how the series sucks, in and of itself.  Personally, I only saw the first episode and thought that it blew.

 I was in Japan in the early '80s as a Marine.

I made friends with a local family. Had some good times.

This family had an older gent of a grand uncle or some such. He was a judo instructor of some repute. He got injured while either training or competing at judo and ended up in the hospital.

The family went to visit him and I tagged along. The old man was terrified of me.

Afterward, I asked why he was so afraid of me. I was told it was because I was a Marine. He, and his entire generation, had been fed a solid line of bullshit propaganda about US Marines during the war.

The propaganda was that in order to be allowed into bootcamp, a prospective Marine had to murder his entire family. In bootcamp, the Marine recruits were treated like animals being trained for pit fighting. Only 10% of the recruits were allowed to graduate bootcamp. The rest had to die either in training, or by being murdered in their sleep by other recruits.

He was also taught that the reason Marines never leave a dead comrade behind is because we used the bodies of our dead as a food source.

The civilian Japs that jumped to their deaths in Saipan didn't do so because of the dishonor of surrender. They did so because they were terrified of the monsters that the Jap propaganda made US military personnel out to be.

was that a stretch from the truth? tell me you didn't eat one other marine in your entire stint in the military.

also i think you are refering to Marpi Point.

PoP, Tom's not making a lot of money off the series from me. I'm watching it for free, with no commercials.

See, I am beginning to think  Tom Hanks did it intentionally. He saw the series, knew it blew hard, and wanted to be able to cause a controversy so that when the series is deemed a total failure, he can blame it on the right wing instead of the quality of the product.

Yep.  Our troops witnessed countless Japanese atrocities in the Philipines (Asians), and fought side-by-side with Filipinos as long as they could, and wept at having to leave them.

Only one thing explains it: RACISM.

Do we have to bitch about a series that is generally sympathetic to our troops?

i'm bitching about the writing, storyline and overall quality of the series, not the concept of a pro troops seriesn and come to think of it almost all WW2 based movies are extremely sympathetic to our troops. I can't really think of one that isn't. It's every war after that which our troops are portrayed as...well.. similar to the way hollywood portrays the badguys in world war 2 movies.

The hardest thing I'm dealing with is the Greek immigrant parents just handily giving their beautiful daughter to the Yankee stranger.  Here, come sleep in our house, have wild sex with our daughter, it's all good.

Like I said earlier, it's a Lifetime movie in the making.  Not a war movie.

And they were religious to boot!! Are there a ton of religious parents who allow men in to bone their daughter and then entertain the guy, feed him and treat him well. seriously!

There isn't one, not one, episode of BoB that i didn't like or found myself fast fowarding through. But so far The Pacific is 0 for 3

John Basilone's MOF citation:

http://tinyurl.com/yh3ovfw

Posted by: XBradTC at March 28, 2010 11:03 PM (cB95w)

I don't see any need to grovel to Hollywood about anything.  One series that doesn't make our troops out to be monsters.  Great.  And then the face of it says that our troops were monsters.  Thank you, Hollywood.  Can I have another?

Are you serious, Brad?

413  LOL...question #99 on the Asvab...hahhaha

Seriously, I just wanted this damn miniseries to be as good, or even almost as good as BoB...and I feel like somebody's taken a giant whizz on me.

And if there is any marital discord due to this, I'm blaming Tom Hanks...perhaps a lawsuit?  hmmmm....

MOF citation

Blush............

 Well, Ben this ep is driving me crazy, not just the stupid soap opera story line, but the writing, acting, everything.  It's kind of like Hanks and Spielberg threw a bunch of shit in the air and whatever landed, they "created" an episode out of it.

Damn it to hell, I wish they'd given the same sensitivity and thought process to The Pacific. 

i know they funded it, but who directed band of brother and who directed this shit.

You make a great point Jane, the acting is fucking awful. The guy who plays Basilone isn't very good, neither are many of the other characters. The best actors in this episode were the Aussie policeman at the bar.

I guess i took for granted the quality of actors in BoB. the guy who played winters was fantastic as were the rest of  Easy Company. It was without question David Schwimmer's(spelling?) best acting job i've ever seen him do. As far as i remember there was only one bad scene in BoB that felt  like it was forced and didn't belong and that was when Jimmy Fallon was a munitions officer or whatever, but thankfully that lasted only like 15 seconds.

Also, to Benson. I understand completely. Being 26, i remember watching a movie with my parents and all the sudden soft core porn comes out of nowhere. it's something forever burned into my memory. It has no place in this series, at all.

I want to meet the writer who wrote this and punch him in the face. He must have said to himself, " you  know what, i need to make this series more like the film Pearl Harbor than the critically acclaimed Band of Brother series, because nothing screams quality than a shitty love story couched into a major historical event to waste valuable story telling time."

jane, i am glad you agree with me. i am going to continue bitching. i am fuming. Obamacare pasted, Israel is getting screwed, taxes are going up, america will go bankrupt, really all i had to look foward too was some matzos and The Pacifc, now I don't even have the Pacific, although i do have a seder tomorrow.

This series has been such a disappointment.  Anothing thing i want to point out is why do they have Tom Hanks narrarate the beggining. In band of brother they had the living members of easy company speak for like 30 seconds, or had Dick Winters do the narraration(the guy playing him) and that seemed to work just fine.

Also, how long were the BoB episodes. I feel like there are 50 minutes TOPS, and 4-5 is spent on narraration and 2 on the opening credits, leaving like 42 minutes of actualy show

**grits teeth**

Hated David Schwimmer in BoB. Worst part of the whole series. Way, way, way too over the top.

really? I think he is a god awful actor, but he was totally believable as an annoying, over confident boob. actually i think the role was perfect for him. You hated him by the end of the first episode. You felt the same way about him that the men of Easy did, and i think that was the point. 

 Ben, I've worked for a couple of incompetent company commanders.  They were buffoonish, but not like that. Given the realism of the rest of the series, such a jarring disconnect from reality stands out.

maybe that is the difference between a draft army and a professional one, a wider range of buffoonery. Someone who is good at discipline and drilling, but not leading or decision making..

I dont know. As you said, you have more experience with it that me, as far as realism is concerned,  but he seemed believable to me, and i am not fan of Schwimmer as an actor. Maybe they did make him a little cartoonish in his stupidity to get the point across, but wasn't this a based on Winters book? I'm assuming the NCO's threatening to resign unless he was relieved was grounded in some truth. And I can't imagine NCOs taking the chance of being executed for insubordination unless they really felt their CO was a tard.

God I miss when HBO was making quality stuff. I miss Rome so much. that was such a great show.

At least I still have Dexter, Mad Men, and It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia

Neurotic twits like Tom Hanks play make-believe, and then professs to be experts on that issue, portraying their suspicions born of ignorance  as the facts. Tom Hanks is clueless. Every aspect of his life is a fantasy. His comments on that issue are those of a fool.

 Never mind that whenever I think of Tom Hanks, I remember him in drag, the first acting job that damned fool had. How can you take anyone seriously whose first major acting job was a drag queen? Next, you'll be heeding the counsel of Ru Paul.

There are no racists in combat.  Survival and a respect for your enemy's capabilities are the strongest instincts.   

Philly and Dexter are good.  I have not watched Mad Men.  I miss The Soprano's!

i had avoided mad men best i could. i tend to avoid things that people won't shut up about. But i watched the third season and it was great. well acted, well written and it really draws you in. 

Dexter Season 3 was god awful, but season 4 was very good.

As for the Soprano's I really really hated that show after the second season. It became so formulaic and lame. The first season was good, second was alright, but after that it dropped off a cliff, at least in my mind.

 Saving Private Ryan seems like it was filled with fools.

A lot of things pissed me off about that movie, the acting was the least of it.. What made me most angry is that hundreds of thousands of real live men were involved in the invasion of France, but Speilbergo decided none of their stories were good enough. No, he needed to make his own story up. Because there is no way that reality is anywhere near as good as Speilberg's creative mind.

I majored in history in college, and love history. I almost never read fiction if it was writen after say 1960. Whenever I explain to people why, I always say reality is far better than anything any fiction writer could ever come up with. Think of any fiction story and something similar if not analgous has already happened. 

So, you take the greatest amphibious invasion in human history, and  that's not good enough for you. You need a poetic license. You can't find one interesting story? He didn't seem to have a problem focusing on Oskar Schindler. He didn't have to make up a fake Holocaust participant or story in order to make a Holocaust movie.  But in order to tell the story of the Allied invasion of France, he had to merge fiction with non fiction so he could push a story of moral relativity between American troops and German troops.  Do me a favor, watch Schindlers List. See if you can spot a theme in which the Germans killing jews aren't all that different from the Jews. You can't. This isn't by accident.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 28, 2010 11:36 PM (UOM48)

Jane, or the any other morons - is Pearl Harbor worth watching?  I've avoided it like the plague.

Concerning 'The Pacific' - I'd sit on my ass all day watching BoB if it was a History Channel marathon even though I have it DVR'ed and the DVD set.  Just can't get into 'The Pacific' at all.

Jane, or the any other morons - is Pearl Harbor worth watching?  I've avoided it like the plague.

Concerning 'The Pacific' - I'd sit on my ass all day watching BoB if it was a History Channel marathon even though I have it DVR'ed and the DVD set.  Just can't get into 'The Pacific' at all.

if i can do one thing before i go to bed, it is to save you from watching Pearl Harbor. it is like having you mind raped. you feel violated and unsatisfied when its over.

night

Joey Dingbat Biden at March 28, 2010 11:55 PM (UOM4

Heh.  He would say something like that, and then flash that big shit eating grin of his.

Anyway, somebody asked if Pearl Harbor with Ben Affleck was any good.

Hell no, it sucked something aweful.

Old story, always tell it:  A former colleague (mid-level manager in federal service, 80 lower-level managers as direct reports, mid-boom age group, had some kind of a degree or wouldn't have held that job), saw P.H. when it first came out, went home and told her husband she wanted everything from Japan out of the house. Traded in her (leased) Lexus for a (leased) Lincoln.

Good Virginia high school, college, 15+ years US Govt civil service, and she'd hever heard of the Dec. 7 attack before the movie. 

I haven't had time to slog through this whole post and I was biting my tongue after reading the initial post until I came to this response by the author:

"For the record, no, I do not think that our troops are racist. But I do think it would be foolish to project our current sensibilities upon the past. Let's face it, things were different 60 years ago."

Who the fuck is this guy?  I think you need to stop projecting your own oversensibilities to the situation over 60 years ago.

My grandfather, and Iwo Jima veteran, and all the old WWII Pacific vets (which numbered about 20) from his tiny little hometown in Mississippi didn't have a racist view toward the "Japs" at all.  And I'm fairly sure the views of these men - <sarc>who lived in what everybody knows to be the most racist state evah </sarc> and served in numerous different units all over the Pacific theater - were fairly representative of the views of the day.

So take your current "sensibilities" and go fuck yourself XBrad.  I'm shocked to come to Ace and see the reputations of our heroes of the Pacific besmirched in such an oh so subtle way.  I guess I just don't get the fucking nuance.

I actually will waste my time reading the rest of the thread though.

It's OK, but not as good as Band of Brothers.  Screenplay is biggest weakeness.  Battle scenes are OK and authentic, but hard to follow because Pacific War involved a ton of night combat in jungle conditions.

Those who are so hung up on Hank's remarks appear to be living in fantasy land.  Just because the left hates America, which they do, does not mean that there was no racism in American society in the 1940s.  Ask any black man who served at that time.  The Marines in particular did not allow black officers at all at that time and the first was not commissioned until November 1945.  Yes, of course, I'm aware of the Red Ball Express, Tuskeegee Airman, and the Nissei units in Italy.  But let's not deny reality in order also to love our country.  The post-1960s race relations--where black crime has exploded and we have official discrimiantion against whites in the form of affirmative action and miscegination is openly promoted on MTV to naive white suburban girls--has its own evils.  Oppressive racism is not good, but there are worse things, like the murderous racism of the Japanese for example or the suicidal self-hatred of so many whites today. 

Neoconservatives get so hung up on whether America fits the liberal definition of the good.  I love my country, like I love my family, even knowning that it's not perfect and some people were left out of the mix for a while. It's not the only evil a country can be guilty of, and it does not discredit all American history before the 1960s as liberals seem to believe. 

Ok, slogged through the rest of the thread to find some bullshit deer-in-the-headlights act from the author:

"But how people suddenly think I'm pro-Axis, or not wholly supportive of our troops, I just don't know where you get that."

Really?  No idea huh?  Could it be that you said something like:

"...how do you think our troops felt about the Japanese, who were not only different looking, but culturally almost incomprehensible to us?"

Or even the sentence prior to that?  Forget all the other motivations our troops had, it had to be straight up racism dawg!  And that you have no evidence to back it up. 

Not. One. Fucking. Shred. 

@496

I was with you up until you said:

"Just because the left hates America, which they do, does not mean that there was no racism in American society in the 1940s."

That's funny, the point was about racism directed toward the Japanese as a motivator for the troops.

Try again.

Just because the left hates America, which they do, does not mean that there was no racism in American society in the 1940s.

It was Woodrow Wilson who re-segregated the Armed Focres after they had been moving toward integration for fifty years.  Roosevelt, being a democrat, wasn't all that interested in changing the democrat way of doing things.  ALL the racists in America were democrats at that time.  ALL of them.  Not all democrats were racists, but all racists were democrats.

As far as the 'racial' thingie goes, peeps really need to look into the Japanese mindset of those years.  They were the REAL racists.  And I mean bad, really bad.  Really, really, really bad.

The 'savagery' dealio?  Yeah, the Japanese were willing to die for their Emperor.  And we were willing to accomodate them.  But the Germans?  They were bad to the bone.  Seriously bad.  Fantastic weapons, incredibly well-trained, loyal, disciplined, well led, hard fighting, tough and more than willing to fight to the bitter end.  The biggest difference is they weren't quite as insane as the Japanese.

Just look at our casualty list from the war.  Far more casualties in Europe.  Big time.  And we weren't all that active on the ground in Western Europe until June of 1944.

Yeah, the Pacific War was tough.  The Japanese were tough fighters.  But just look at thier weapons.  Their main Infantry rifle was a joke.  So were their machineguns.  Their pistol was more dangerous to the operator than to the enemy.  Tanks?  What Tanks?  And we'd lay off the Islands for a week and chuck 2,600 lb 16" Battleship rounds at them until they were so cross-eyed they couldn't see straight.

The Japanese were Bush-League.  The Germans were the best Army ever fielded in the history of Man..  Besides our own, of course.

OK, Ep 3 wasn't bad at all. Yeah, I get that you guys want all blood, all guts.

But the division spent almost a year in Australia/NewZealand. It was a huge part of the division's history. And many a war romance took place.

The real question is, how will Ep 4 go? If the landings at Peleliu are well done, will anyone cut the producers a little slack?

Again, you are misreading my critizism. Its not that I want blood. I want a well written script, good acting, and good cinematography.

Sure they spent almost a year in Austrialia, but Easy Company spent a lot of time in England, but they didn't blow an entire f'ing episode on a fictional romance that was on par, in terms of quality and writing, with that of a lifetime movie.  Just think of how much was accomplished in the episode of BoB where they were staying in England, in terms of how it added to the story.  This was an entire wasted episode. They could have covered the entire substance of Ep 3 in 10-15 minutes. They dragged it out so much longer than it needed to be. Why introduce and go into this made up girl and her family?  And if you do so, why spend an entire episode on it? I get it, soldiers screwed women during wars, but if i want to actually watch that i can rent some cheap porn. If I watch a war series I want to see, well war. And I am not just talking about the battle scenes, but maybe logistics, planning, staging. All the stuff in BoB that made it interesting and made you feel connected to the men in Easy Company as you watch them from basic training all the way to the occupation.

Also, if there is one more nightime battle scene in the Pacific where they make it so dark that the viewer can't tell what is going on i am done. I understand the battles took place at night and am not making the argument that they should be changed to daytime for my benefit, but for the love of god you can shoot a night time battle scene in a war, with enough light, that the viewer can tell what is going on.

Roosevelt was the primary motivator for allowing ANY black combat units. Sure, he did it for political, electoral reasons, but he did it. If the Army had its way, there's little likelihood that any black combat units would have been formed.

Nonsense.  Roosevelt wasn't the least bit interested in integrating the Armed Forces.  Not the least.  If you're thinking of the Tuskegee Airmen, that Eleanor's deal from the get.  All the way.

Nonsense.  Roosevelt wasn't the least bit interested in integrating the Armed Forces.  Not the least.  If you're thinking of the Tuskegee Airmen, that Eleanor's deal from the get.  All the way.

And what legal authority did Eleanor have? She may have been the one pushing it, but FDR is the one who told the generals to make it happen.  And while I'm away from my reference materials, there's a lot of documentation showing that Roosevelt pretty much point-blank told SecWar Stimson that there would be black combat units.

But did you see Eleanor's toned arms??? Fabulous!

"If there was racism against our own citizens, do you really think there was no racial component directed against our enemies?"

Still waiting for you to provide one lick of evidence, champ. 

Because other posters pointing out to you the fact that we had Japanese Americans serving in our own military at the time apparently doesn't fucking register.

If you're thinking of the Tuskegee Airmen,

Didn't they singlehandedly conquer Germany using their magical syphillitic powers? Or am I thinking of something else..

Because other posters pointing out to you the fact that we had Japanese Americans serving in our own military at the time apparently doesn't fucking register.

didn't they serve in a segregated unit? Also, isn't it accurate that whites didn't use blacks blood for transfusions?

I am not going the tom hanks route here, but racism existed. it wasn't the cause of the war, the motivator of our foreign policy, but it did exist in some areas.

War Without Mercy is a good backgrounder for all you naive wannabees who think America in the 1940s got the anti-racism memo.

 And I didn't say that Roosevelt was interested in integrating the services. I said he was the one who made sure there were black combat units. That's not the same thing.

What Black Combat units?  The only one I can think of is the Tuskegee Airmen.  And yes, Brad, the First Lady of the United States has a lot of power.  It's not spelled out in the Constitution but I suggest you heed the words of King Henry, "What sluggards, what cowards have I brought up in my court, who care nothing for their allegiance to their lord. Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest."

The Armed Forces were segregated under FDR.  Period.  The only instance of integration was the one I have already noted and a call by Eisenhower during the Battle of The Bulge for volunteers in which about 2,000 Black Men volunteered for Combat duty.

It wasn't until Harry Truman signed Executive Order #9981 in 1948 that segregation in the Army was formally ended.  And that was only because he was in trouble against Dewey and because Eisenhower (Army CoS) was largely ignoring the racist democrats by integrating the Army to a degree.

The democrats have ALWAYS favored one Race over the other.  Always.  For 150 years they were on the wrong side of the race debate, then in 1964 LBJ made some kind of deal with MLK and the democrats suddenly switched sides and have since managed to convince the clueless masses that they've never been the racist pigs people with an IQ know them to be.

"I am not going the tom hanks route here, but racism existed. it wasn't the cause of the war, the motivator of our foreign policy, but it did exist in some areas."

Well actually, you are going the Tom Hanks route.  No shit racism existed in some areas.  But if it wasn't the cause of the war, or the motivator of foreign policy, why the fuck are we talking about it?  Apparently some people (which include Tom Hanks, Brad, and now possibly you) think it was a big enough factor to bring up in this conversation about motivations for fighting an enemy who attacked you.

Some sort of evidence would be helpful here, other than someone actually applying today's sensibilities (read: someone's fucking guesswork) to the attitudes of yesteryear.  Because I've personally known, interviewed, or spoken to at least 50 WWII vets from all different units and parts of the country (to include Mitchell Paige - look him up sometime, he's particularly relevant to this thread) and without prompting, most of them all say they never held any hatred, resentment or animosity toward the Japanese.  Those that didn't offer up those sentiments, had no hesitation of expressing the same feelings when asked.

So is anyone pushing this bullshit racist theme gonna stop talking out of their ass and back it up yet?

You talking about 516?  It's a book review.  All I have to go off of is what the reviewer has to say.  Considering that the reviewer states "Conservative readers, don't fret..." leads me to believe it's not a quality review regardless of the reviewer's political ideology.  Looking at some of the passages he's quoting from the book, some of those quotes don't really strike me as racist. 

Having spent 20 years in the Marines, I know when commanders (like the ones cited) are applying their intel and knowledge of the enemy.  Sort of like your random Afghan running into battle with an AK-47 spraying bullets everywhere.  You might hear something to the tune of "Afghanis/Pashtuns can't shoot".  That's not racist, it's an assessment.

That's about the only good link I saw.  You want to point out the other one?  Does it show how race was a significant component in how our troops were motivated to fight?  Post 516's source doesn't prove that in the slightest.  Does the other link you're referring to provide such evidence?

I'm not looking for confirmation bias, because I know what I know through my own personal research.  I wouldn't dream of asking you to refute what I've learned.  I'd just like to see you prove your own assertion for once.

@501 The Germans were the best Army ever fielded in the history of Man.. 

Mede puh-leeze...

I think our Band of Brothers boxed set is indispensable, I won't even look to buy this one.

And 526: most of the world is still heavily racist; the US is probably one of the least racist places on earth simply because of its origin and development.

"Of course, you blithely dismiss the evidence in the other link, yet claim you aren't looking for confirmation bias."

Blithely? I gave enough of a refutation that a book review warrants in a blog comment section to suffice.  You want more for a fucking book review?  Hold your breath. 

On to your second link.  Wikipedia.  Seriously?  Ok, fine, here we go:

A post about mutilating war dead and the motivations for such.  Got it.

Opening paragraph about mutilating war dead:  Waiting for a link to racism.  None here.  Moving on...

Section 1.  Talks about rare behavior from a minority of troops.  Still no racism link even then. 

Section 1.1. First sentence.  Really kinda fucks up your whole assertion.  Refresher: XBrad - "...our troops felt about the Japanese..."

Going through the rest of the article in the rest of that light, it's talking about the possible motivations of these minorities of servicemembers.  It talks much of dehumanizing the enemy, but to confuse this effect with racism is to misunderstand the indoctrination of fighting men.   I'm struck by this sentence:

The problem with Wiki is that I could waste even more time picking apart that article and its subtle internal contradictions, or critiquing the sources cited (one of whom pushing the race aspect Weingartner, has pulled the same sort of race card in the Atomic Bombing debate).  The bottom line is that despite the fact that your source seems to refute your premise, your source is ultimately only speculating about the racism angle for a minority of troops.

"Any evidence that doesn't hew to exactly your line of thinking is invalid."
Don't just toss out some bullshit, call it evidence, then criticize my thinking.

Got anything else, chief? 

There was a level of savagery in the Pacific that the European theater, for all its wholesale carnage, never achieved.

This clown never met the Waffen SS.

Elite units like the Waffen SS aside, the regular Wehrmacht did not reach the level of the atrocities regularly committed by the Japanese armies. A whopping 1/3 of Allied* Pacific Theatre prisoners of the Japanese died after capture or in captivity, for the Nazis in the European Theatre it was something closer to 5%, less than 10%.

*disclaimer: "Allied" defined as US and British Commonwealth Forces. However Filipino troops *are* included in the US totals, and East Indian, African and other colonial troops are counted in the British totals, so these prisoners are not lily white either.

@524

You keep pushing that Hanks line.

a) American Propaganda - would it be bad to point out that propaganda isn't reflective of actual opinion and that the soldiers then weren't a bunch of dumbasses?  Addressed in my previous post.

b) Already addressed that in my previous post too.  Still waiting for definitive proof that the actions of a minority was proof positive of racist motives of the majority.

c) Evidence enough to indict the majority?

50 year old memories are invalid?  Gosh that's awfully convenient.  Actually they were anywhere from 30-40 year old memories, but I guess they were full of shit.  Tell me, at what point do you think war crimes testimony based on such fallible memories should have no longer been/no longer be admissible in court?

Oops, looks like the website ate the sentence I was struck by in post 528:

From that Wikipedia article that has all that evidence to show our racist troops of WWII:

"Despite the impact of this propaganda, U.S. Army opinion surveys found that the high degree of hatred towards the Japanese expressed by soldiers in training typically declined dramatically once the men entered combat."

Re: 532

Still not getting it I see. 

"I'm not asking you to take that at face value, but you might notice that at the link, there are links to citations that you can use."

No shit really?  Would that be why I brought up "or critiquing the sources cited (one of whom pushing the race aspect Weingartner, has pulled the same sort of race card in the Atomic Bombing debate)"?  In addition to doing better homework, try reading the posts you're responding to a little better.

See, I tried to look up one of these sources, but can't get the whole thing.  Namely p.54 in reference #15.  Though I do like the way p. 53 ends.  Too bad I can't see the startling conclusion and check his reference for the assertion.  I was also intrigued by reference #11 which, as with most other references on those pages, was quite useless for this discussion (doesn't link to the work described).  It does cite to the author who is described as a champion of counterfactual history, so take that for what you will.

Now, take a look at that final sentence that you quoted.  Apply it to the rest of the paragraph and your point overall.  See anything that doesn't really help your argument?  Now take that part about this source only highlighting the "rare" actions of a minority of soldiers and do the math for fuck's sake

So considering that you called Tomk Hanks' remarks "foolish", yet are pushing the same bilge, what the fuck does that mean?

Re: 533

"BtW, I said there was a racial component. I did not argue that it was the majority reason for our troops motivation. I've given evidence that there was in fact a racial component. You're busy moving my goalposts."

Speaking of moving goalposts, let's quote you since you apparently don't remember what you wrote and lack the ability to reference it:

"...how do you think our troops felt about the Japanese..."

Hmmm, "our troops".  What the fuck does that mean?  Why don't you tell us how the troops felt since apparently you're in-the-know? 

If you're clarifying to mean "some troops" now, then more power to you.  I'll support you on that, but don't get all butthurt because of your linguistic imprecision.  Since you feel the need to offer some words of wisdom, allow me to offer some in turn: if you're going to paint with a broad brush, ensure you're right beforehand.

Elite units like the Waffen SS aside, the regular Wehrmacht did not reach the level of the atrocities regularly committed by the Japanese armies. A whopping 1/3 of Allied* Pacific Theatre prisoners of the Japanese died after capture or in captivity, for the Nazis in the European Theatre it was something closer to 5%, less than 10%.

That's because not too mnay anti-NAZI soldiers made it into captivity.  The Soviets themselves claimed 26 million dead.  Some historians think it was more like 40 million.  Maybe more.  The Soviets lost 20% of their ENTIRE population in the War.  Poland around 16%.  We lost just over 400,000.  China lost between 3 and 4 perent of its population, which is a LOT of people but nothing like what happened in Europe.  Especially Eastern Europe.

The Waffen SS (armed body guards) seldom took prisoners.  If ever.  If Western prisoners made it into German captivity, they stood a better chance of survival than in a Japanese prison camp.  Not true if you were Russian.  In that case, you stood about a 60% chance of not making it out alive.  But that was still better than being found out by the Soviet Army.  It was illegal for a Soviet soldier to surrender.  Summary execution if they caught you after you surrendered.

Look, I'm not saying the Japanese weren't tough.  I'm not saying the Japanese weren't incredibly cruel.  All you gotta do is watch some film footage of the 'Rape Of Nanking'.  That'll change your appetite.  Disgusting.  What I am saying, however, is that as soldiers, as an effective fighting force -- The Japanese sucked.  Their weapons sucked, their leadership sucked, their tactics sucked, their artillery sucked, their almost non-existent armor sucked. 

Individually tough?  Hell yeah.  Compared to the krauts?

Pussies.

The Navy in the Pac Theatre lost nearly twice as many men as did the Marines, as did the Army.  Of the 400,000 deaths in the US armed Forces during WWII, the Marine Corps accounted for just under 25,000.  Less than a tenth of what the Army lost and less than half what the Navy lost.

I love the Marines but just remember -- The Marines make headlines, the Army makes history.

We on the right get agitated when people mindlessly parrot talking points from the Left or the MSM, and rightly so. But we do our cause no justice when we are guilty of the same robotic repetition of talking points.
Amen.

BtW, have you ever taken a college level history course?  I mean who would have thunk it was going out on a limb to say the vast majority of Americans hated the Japanese intensely and in a racial way during WWII in a way both reflected in and fostered by unique war time propaganda and attitudes that were distinct from what Americans thoguth and did re: the Nazis?

"The Navy in the Pac Theatre lost nearly twice as many men as did the Marines, as did the Army.  Of the 400,000 deaths in the US armed Forces during WWII, the Marine Corps accounted for just under 25,000.  Less than a tenth of what the Army lost and less than half what the Navy lost.

 I love the Marines but just remember -- The Marines make headlines, the Army makes history."

Spare the interservice rivalry bullshit. 

By percentage killed:

Marines: 3.66%

Army: 2.8%

Navy: 1.5%

How many of those Navy deaths were due to directly attacking the enemy and how many were due to some Seaman getting blown up below decks? 

Got a list of victories and defeats?  Surrenders?

Marines have made just as much history with fewer numbers, so get a grip, we're all on the same team.

"BtW, have you ever taken a college level history course?  I mean who would have thunk it was going out on a limb to say the vast majority of Americans hated the Japanese intensely and in a racial way during WWII in a way both reflected in and fostered by unique war time propaganda and attitudes that were distinct from what Americans thoguth and did re: the Nazis?"

Oh how quaint. 

The intellectual superiority card played after failing to respond to direct questions.  You must be from the educated class.

Mind if I look at your pant crease?

I gave a source.  read the book and tell me if it's wrong or if it proves my point.  I thoguht the synopsis in the review made it pretty clear it did support our broader point.  That said, I still don't think you took such a course or, if you did, didn't do very well.  I think since we're talking about an intellectual endeavor--history--intellectual skills kind of matter.  You've only shown low level cunning, at best.

PS Since when do real conservatives make maudlin appeals to equality?

Spare the interservice rivalry bullshit. 

Love the Marines.  Damned good soldiers.  Some of the best light infantry in the world.

I just get a little tired of the self-promotion from time to time.

The reason the percentage of Marine KIAs is higher than the Army's is that -- The Army supports itself.  The Marines are supported mostly by the Navy.  'Support' troops don't see all that much action.  Supply, logistics, hospitals, nurses, doctors, laundry, motor pool, Intelligence, Medics.  In fact, the Marines don't even have their own Medics.  They're Navy 'Corpse'men. 

That's like saying the 82nd Airborne suffers more casualties than the 174th truck drivers battalion.

No shit.

"The reason the percentage of Marine KIAs is higher than the Army's is that -- The Army supports itself.  The Marines are supported mostly by the Navy.  'Support' troops don't see all that much action.  Supply, logistics, hospitals, nurses, doctors, laundry, motor pool, Intelligence, Medics.  In fact, the Marines don't even have their own Medics.  They're Navy 'Corpse'men. 

 That's like saying the 82nd Airborne suffers more casualties than the 174th truck drivers battalion.

 No shit."

Kind of like when you post raw numbers as if you're making the point that Marines' sacrifices weren't proportional?  Why don't we just tell one another to fuck off and call it a day?

"I gave a source.  Read the book and tell me if it's wrong or if it proves my point."

Let me run right out and grab a copy, then we can pick up right here after I'm done, k?  Promise you'll stay?

Spare me.  I addressed the points in the synopsis and provided some perspective.  Again, it's a book review, consequently I will treat it as such and chuckle at your pompously ironic misfire:

"That said, I still don't think you took such a course or, if you did, didn't do very well." 

Are you prone to such ridiculous posturing?  Bringing up something so utterly irrelevant, lamely approaching an appeal to authority, is indicative that your position is weak.  And following it up with:

"I think since we're talking about an intellectual endeavor--history--intellectual skills kind of matter." 

...makes it laughable.  

So, since you deem my responses and unworthy of rebuttal or that my questions require no answer, how about we just consider one another idiots and call it a day.

Deal?

Kind of like when you post raw numbers as if you're making the point that Marines' sacrifices weren't proportional?  Why don't we just tell one another to fuck off and call it a day?

Never claimed the Marines sacrifices weren't huge.  Just that it pisses me off when peeps think that it's the Marines and only the Marines who fought at places like Guadalcanal.  When the truth is, it was the United States Army that saved the Marines' asses there.  The Marines didn't even have M1 Garands yet, they were still using the 1903 Springfield.  Then the Army's 164th (?) ID shows up with their M1s and the Navy loses almost three times as many men as the Marines in a very severe Naval battle.  And the XIV Corps (Army) shows up and runs the Japanese into the sea... Or the hills.

Maybe it's Hollywood's fault.  Maybe it's the fact that the Corps used to have to fight hard for its very survival.  Whatever.

No hard feelings, dood.  Not on my part.  But history is history.  And bullshit is bullshit.

No disrespect intended. 

"No hard feelings, dood.  Not on my part.  But history is history.  And bullshit is bullshit.

No disrespect intended."

Then stop and think about what you want to write before you hit send.  There's no bullshit here.

The Navy had to bail on the Corps (for good reason) and leave them hanging high and dry for quite awhile, while the Japanese reinforced.  It was nasty, prolonged, and you might want to check out some of the citations for bravery, including Mitchell Paige's.  I've never met a 1st MarDiv vet from Guadalcanal who wasn't grateful to the Army for showing up.  But the fact was that the Marines are the ones who took the Island (easy in this case) and held it (the hard part) so that no one had to retake it.  The more compelling story is the Marines' side, therefore that's pretty much what gets a movie made.

The Army has how many movies made about them?  The Navy?  The Corps hasn't stolen any glory whatsoever from any other branch.

"The 1stMarDiv's struggle under the guns of the IJN was indeed one of the epic endeavors of the war. Not many other units can say they were on the receiving end of 6", 8", 12", 14", and 16" naval gunfire."

After attending a couple of 1stMarDiv Assn reunions and hearing some firsthand accounts of the psychological effects that type of gunfire had on our guys at Guadalcanal, I'm that much more awestruck that the Japanese defenders of Iwo Jima and the like not only decided to fight, but fought so well.

Those guys still tear up when talking about that very thing over 50 years after the fact (last time I went).

Posted by: XBradTC at March 29, 2010 05:18 PM (cB95w)

That comment reminds me a bit of a disgusting piece of mouth breeding, snot gobbling, intellectually inbred shit that used to hang out over at BlackFive in the comments. A worthless scumbag went by the name of ActionHeroSockPuppet.

He was former Marine, former Army, former Counter Insurgency Instructor and a whole laundery list of other wonderful things. He was currently a journalist. A particularly nasty journalist. The sort that declared the Haditha Marines guilty because he heard from someone who knew someone who had a friend that was a cousin of the girlfriend of one of the guys investigating the incident talking in the chowhall  or DFAC or whatever you young pups call it these days.

So, the Marines refused to coordinate with arty? You know that for sure? Or is that just the usual scuttlebutt shit that gets gobbled up as fact by shiteaters?

Or, is it a case of inattentive commanders leaving the situation to lowers who were terrified of transgressing against the new ROE? As in the admission in the report that arty was refused because of the ROE for an extended period of time? As in, testimony that the "can't do it because of the ROE..." coming over the radio when the arty was being called for?

Please tell us oh wonderful one, just what sort of pre patrol coordination covers piss weak bureaucrats in full career protection mode in control of the guns being fired or not?

Semper Fi, Mother Fucker.

Having made BILLIONS upon BILLIONS catering and outsourcing

to the franchise slum and denial needs of history's MOST awesomely

genocidal regime ---ACROSS the Pacific ---Hollywood continues

to run for moral cover behind ad nausem, anachronistic PC WWII

retreads ---EVEN on this! ----the once again 'mysteriously overlooked'

epic, relevant ---indeed, STILL unfolding ---KOREAN WAR!

LOL

good post.cheap Newport cigarettes
newport menthol cigarettes

newport cigarettes wholesale

cheap marlboro cigarettes