ACCBoards

Really looking forward to this.

Link to HBO's page.

Lets hope its as good as BOB.

The build up is huge. It appears to be a Hanks/Spielberg redux.

It will be great if they build the characters like Band of Brothers did, great personal connection in doing so. Brought the horror of war close

Given Hanks recent moronic comments, I'm tempering expectations. Frankly, I cannot reconcile Hanks previous work in the genre and his recent comments.

(03-14-2010 05:06 PM)PackLTBuy Wrote: [ -> ]Given Hanks recent moronic comments, I'm tempering expectations. Frankly, I cannot reconcile Hanks previous work in the genre and his recent comments.

Can you be more specific here? Just what has he said?

He said the war with Japan was based on racism like the war on terror is today.

(03-14-2010 05:48 PM)PackLTBuy Wrote: [ -> ]He said the war with Japan was based on racism like the war on terror is today.

Not trying to be argumentative, but can you provide a link for that? It seems if he felt that way why would he have gotten involved with the show?

Sorry for the lack of MSM link (other than the link that includes the MSNBC interview and the Time quote), they seem not to take umbrage with the quotes on both Time and MSNBC at all. Make of that what you will. The man's words are his words and he appears to stand by them in their entirety.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/entertainmen...and-terror

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62716

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-orei...the-rails/

Quote:From: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,...-1,00.html

And he is pleased that <i>The Pacific</i> has fulfilled an obligation to our World War II vets. He doesn't see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. "From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place," Hanks says. "How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"

Anyone who thinks the average American wasn't racist with regards to Asians in general during the 1940's - and later - simply isn't familiar with our society of that era. They were looked upon as worthy only of washing clothes and other menial tasks.

The American fighting man of WW2 was taught to hate the enemy in Europe and Asia. It was probably easier to hate the Japanese, at least until experience with German barbarity tipped the scales in favor of hatred.

BUT, our war with Japan had nothing to do with racism as a reason and everything to do with Japan's efforts to conquer as much of Asia as possible and create a colonial empire that would provide the raw materials necessary to keep their factories going and millions of people virtual slaves. In order to ensure their goals, it was necessary to eliminate the threat posed by the American Navy in the Pacific and then invade the countries on the Pacific Rim, the Philippines and even Australia. The attack on Pearl Harbor did much to generate hate for Japan among Americans. The hate factor ratcheted up significantly when photos of Japanese beheading captured Australian troops were released. That, combined with further atrocities and the Japanese Bushido code of death before surrender, almost guaranteed a war of annihilation on the battlefield. Similarly, after the Massacre at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge, German troops who surrendered were frequently executed summarily. My next door neighbor, a Vet of the Bulge, told me as much one time.

IMO, the war didn't begin because of racism but the existing racism for Asians became more pronounced when war came.

Quote:"Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"

It's always been my opinion that in war you have to dehumanize your enemy. With this particular quote he says it works both ways, even today. I'll look at the others but I don't have a problem with what he's saying here.

Your point is true and if that was all he was saying I would have no problem. But he goes too far. And stands by the statements in followup interviews. The bolded below is clearly baseless. Racism was never the fundamental Japanese reason for initiating or prosecuting war against us. And neither was it any fundamental underpinning of our reasons for how we prosecuted the war against them.


This MSNBC interview contained this (the foxnation link contains the video):

Quote:In his interview with MSNBC, Hanks said: “‘The Pacific’ now is coming out where it really represents a war that was of racism and terror and it seemed as though the only way to complete one of these battles on these small specks of rock in the middle of nowhere was to-- I'm sorry-- kill them all,” Hanks told MSNBC. “And does that sound familiar to what we might be going through today? So it's-- is there anything new under the sun? It seems as if history keeps repeating itself.”

(03-14-2010 07:48 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone who thinks the average American wasn't racist with regards to Asians in general during the 1940's - and later - simply isn't familiar with our society of that era. They were looked upon as worthy only of washing clothes and other menial tasks.

The American fighting man of WW2 was taught to hate the enemy in Europe and Asia. It was probably easier to hate the Japanese, at least until experience with German barbarity tipped the scales in favor of hatred.

BUT, our war with Japan had nothing to do with racism as a reason and everything to do with Japan's efforts to conquer as much of Asia as possible and create a colonial empire that would provide the raw materials necessary to keep their factories going and millions of people virtual slaves. In order to ensure their goals, it was necessary to eliminate the threat posed by the American Navy in the Pacific and then invade the countries on the Pacific Rim, the Philippines and even Australia. The attack on Pearl Harbor did much to generate hate for Japan among Americans. The hate factor ratcheted up significantly when photos of Japanese beheading captured Australian troops were released. That, combined with further atrocities and the Japanese Bushido code of death before surrender, almost guaranteed a war of annihilation on the battlefield. Similarly, after the Massacre at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge, German troops who surrendered were frequently executed summarily. My next door neighbor, a Vet of the Bulge, told me as much one time.

IMO, the war didn't begin because of racism but the existing racism for Asians became more pronounced when war came.

thank you for sharing, stampy.

that is honest good stuff.

(03-14-2010 05:48 PM)PackLTBuy Wrote: [ -> ]He said the war with Japan was based on racism like the war on terror is today.

He is not necessarily wrong. Racism played a huge role in the Pacific war. The Japanese thought they were superior to and rightful masters of any race in the eastern asia sphere. And they thought we were weak and inferior. We severly underestimated them in large part due to race.

Of course, the cause of the war was Japan's desire for conquest and empire building. But part of that desire for empire building was based on their belief in racial superiority.

There certainly was much more racial prejudice in the Pacific conflict. It went both ways. Pearl harbor, the treatment of the Chineses ( e.g. Nanking ), and the treatment of Allied POWs contributed to the hatred. Add in the Japanese suicidal attachment to honor and the Empire and it made for a damn gruesome war in the Pacoific.

ddii, chip, vid:

All of your points are infinitely more delicate and nuanced than Hanks' "a war that was of racism and terror".

If the man has a delicate point, he should make it delicately. I don't think anything about his treatment of the subject has been delicate. Racism is not the primary motivation of the Pacific theatre. And Hanks leading so aggressively with the racism charge suggests otherwise.

Last night's reviews of next week's "The Pacific" showed Sgt. John Basilone being awarded the Medal of Honor. As I recall from my various readings about the Guadalcanal campaign, Sgt Basilone ended up standing by himself against a massive Japanese night attack that would have retaken Henderson Field. Manning a machine gun, Basilone mowed down attacking Japanese soldiers in piles and they had to crawl over their own dead trying to advance. They were stopped cold. The MoH was surely earned that night.

With regards to racism and Asians, I'm nearly finished a massive book by David Halberstam called "The Coldest Winter". It details the Korean War from various angles including the politics of the major players on both sides. He's particularly critical of MacArthur's role.

Halberstam repeatedly points out that from MacArthur downward, American racism played into the hands of the enemy as our leaders could not come to terms with the fact that the North Korean Army and later the Chinese Army was experienced, tough and had excellent soldiers. General Almond, Commander of 10th Corps - including the Marines - continually referred to the Chinese as "Laundrymen" and even after the disaster at Chosin refused to respect his opponents. General Walton Walker, commanding the 8th Army on the Western side of Korea, wasn't much better in recognizing that he was fighting a determined and skilled enemy. Much of the blame, however, belongs to the MacArthur staff in Tokyo who made fatal decisions while forcing the UN forces to advance piecemeal in isolated units that had no flanking support. They were quickly surrounded and forced to run a gauntlet of Chinese ambushes while retreating in an effort to consolidate their lines. Almond, in particular, was guilty of exposing his units.

It wasn't until General Matthew B. Ridgeway took command following the death of General Walker that a leader took the Chinese military seriously and began compiling intelligence about them that altered our tactics and methods of fighting. Ridgeway, the General who formed our Airborne forces in WW2, turned the war around because he respected the abilities of the Chinese and learned how to fight and defeat them.

Anyone remember seeing the Popeye cartoon where he fought the Japanese?

Whatta ya think about that little 'gem' of propaganda? In a child's cartoon no less...

(03-15-2010 09:58 AM)PackLTBuy Wrote: [ -> ]ddii, chip, vid:

All of your points are infinitely more delicate and nuanced than Hanks' "a war that was of racism and terror".

If the man has a delicate point, he should make it delicately. I don't think anything about his treatment of the subject has been delicate. Racism is not the primary motivation of the Pacific theatre. And Hanks leading so aggressively with the racism charge suggests otherwise.

Well, in fairness to Hanks, he is not really a historian. I can see how some might feel the war was all about racism.

(03-14-2010 07:48 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone who thinks the average American wasn't racist with regards to Asians in general during the 1940's - and later - simply isn't familiar with our society of that era. They were looked upon as worthy only of washing clothes and other menial tasks.

The American fighting man of WW2 was taught to hate the enemy in Europe and Asia. It was probably easier to hate the Japanese, at least until experience with German barbarity tipped the scales in favor of hatred.

BUT, our war with Japan had nothing to do with racism as a reason and everything to do with Japan's efforts to conquer as much of Asia as possible and create a colonial empire that would provide the raw materials necessary to keep their factories going and millions of people virtual slaves. In order to ensure their goals, it was necessary to eliminate the threat posed by the American Navy in the Pacific and then invade the countries on the Pacific Rim, the Philippines and even Australia. The attack on Pearl Harbor did much to generate hate for Japan among Americans. The hate factor ratcheted up significantly when photos of Japanese beheading captured Australian troops were released. That, combined with further atrocities and the Japanese Bushido code of death before surrender, almost guaranteed a war of annihilation on the battlefield. Similarly, after the Massacre at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge, German troops who surrendered were frequently executed summarily. My next door neighbor, a Vet of the Bulge, told me as much one time.

IMO, the war didn't begin because of racism but the existing racism for Asians became more pronounced when war came.

Exactly correct!

PS: Tom Hanks is an idiot, albeit a rich one. Same group said dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary. Idiots without a clue of the historical context of contemporary events and thinking.

IMO, so far Pacific cannot hold a candle to Band of Brothers. Hanks and Spielberg are after the money. I'll watch for two more weeks, and unless the story line improves, I am done with it!

(03-15-2010 02:15 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-14-2010 07:48 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone who thinks the average American wasn't racist with regards to Asians in general during the 1940's - and later - simply isn't familiar with our society of that era. They were looked upon as worthy only of washing clothes and other menial tasks.

The American fighting man of WW2 was taught to hate the enemy in Europe and Asia. It was probably easier to hate the Japanese, at least until experience with German barbarity tipped the scales in favor of hatred.

BUT, our war with Japan had nothing to do with racism as a reason and everything to do with Japan's efforts to conquer as much of Asia as possible and create a colonial empire that would provide the raw materials necessary to keep their factories going and millions of people virtual slaves. In order to ensure their goals, it was necessary to eliminate the threat posed by the American Navy in the Pacific and then invade the countries on the Pacific Rim, the Philippines and even Australia. The attack on Pearl Harbor did much to generate hate for Japan among Americans. The hate factor ratcheted up significantly when photos of Japanese beheading captured Australian troops were released. That, combined with further atrocities and the Japanese Bushido code of death before surrender, almost guaranteed a war of annihilation on the battlefield. Similarly, after the Massacre at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge, German troops who surrendered were frequently executed summarily. My next door neighbor, a Vet of the Bulge, told me as much one time.

IMO, the war didn't begin because of racism but the existing racism for Asians became more pronounced when war came.

Exactly correct!

PS: Tom Hanks is an idiot, albeit a rich one. Same group said dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary. Idiots without a clue of the historical context of contemporary events and thinking.

IMO, so far Pacific cannot hold a candle to Band of Brothers. Hanks and Spielberg are after the money. I'll watch for two more weeks, and unless the story line improves, I am done with it!

Tag, I understand your frustrations. The show hasn't done an adequate job of explaining the Guadalcanal-Bouganville campaign to give the audience a reference. IMO they could have used a map to show the key points on the island to include the airfield, the rivers, hills, Marine defensive positions and the path of the Japanese from their landing area to the battle sites. The fighting would be easier to understand.

Robert Leckie, one of the men being followed, later wrote the book "Helmet For My Pillow" which is one of the best books about the fighting on Guadalcanal ever written. Leckie has also authored numerous books about various wars and I've found them to be good reading.

Another book by Lt. Col. John George is "Shots Fired in Anger". George was a Lt. in an Army unit that arrived after the Marines on Guadalcanal. It was this Army unit that convinced the Marines that they needed the M1 Garand rifle rather than the 1903 Springfields that they were using. When the Army adopted the semi-automatic Garand in 1936, the Marines refused to go along and kept the bolt action 1903 with improved sights. They quickly realized their mistake on Guadalcanal and it wasn't long before the Garand was standard issue for Marines. Lt. George later became one of Merrill's Marauders.

I don't think the show is supposed to be a historical overview of the military significance of certain objectives. Rather it is supposed to give a grunt eye view of the war and his lack of overall understanding or knowledge of higher objectives.

Did the bit players in the actual campaign have a detailed view of their objectives and how those objectives were to mesh in some larger plan? I am genuinely asking? It does not seem that an 18 year old private was privy to such info.

(03-15-2010 03:10 PM)BoonetheAiredale Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think the show is supposed to be a historical overview of the military significance of certain objectives. Rather it is supposed to give a grunt eye view of the war and his lack of overall understanding or knowledge of higher objectives.

Did the bit players in the actual campaign have a detailed view of their objectives and how those objectives were to mesh in some larger plan? I am genuinely asking? It does not seem that an 18 year old private was privy to such info.

Boone, IMO every Marine, Soldier and Sailor who served on or around Guadalcanal and Bouganville understood the strategic importance of their efforts. Denying the Japanese an airfield that could have interrupted supply lines to Australia and NZ was easy to comprehend. The importance of a victory to American moral was also easy to understand.

MacArthur's island hopping campaign was well thought out and the strategy was fairly simple. We mostly hit them where they weren't and thus isolated large Japanese concentrations that were allowed to wither and die because they couldn't easily be supplied or removed. Some concentrations of Japanese forces such as Rabaul were largely destroyed without the need for invasion. The islands being captured served a land bases for air power to help capture more islands and as staging areas for mounting another amphibious campaign. It was pretty obvious to everyone down to a private what the strategy was.

What was less obvious was the unit strategy. The war for the average Marine and Soldier was pretty much only what was within his view. They were given a defensive position or an enemy position to take and all that mattered was small unit tactics that would produce the desired results. The disposition of the units around them and what upper command was doing with them was likely unknown to anyone below company or even regimental level.

It's interesting to note that later, during the Korean War, both North Korean and Chinese privates were knowledgeable about objectives and tactics at levels far above them. In fact, they knew so much that our intelligence people refused to believe them as no American private would ever be privy to such information.

Guadalcanal. Mrs. T's dad was injured there. Head wound from artillery. Suffered all his life.

(03-15-2010 04:45 PM)Tenmile Wrote: [ -> ]Guadalcanal. Mrs. T's dad was injured there. Head wound from artillery. Suffered all his life.

It was a bad show all around and I'm sorry for your FiL's suffering.

In 1960 when I was 17, I had a Summer job working as an electrician's helper. One of our jobs was at the new Linganor High School that was just at the beginning stages.

One of the construction crew workers was a man in his mid 30's and a Marine veteran of WW2. For whatever reason he seemed to have a problem with my age and would make comments about what the Marines would do with someone so young. I ignored him but it was clear that he had emotional problems that probably stemmed from the war.

A good friend's father was an Army vet of the Pacific fighting and while he masked it pretty well, I know that he had problems definitely connected to his experiences in the war.

While some of the German soldiers, particularly the SS and Paratroopers, would fight to the death, the Japanese with rare exceptions did not give up. The war in the Pacific was one of annihilation. The men who fought it were never the same afterward.

Just hooked my computer up to our big screen and watched episode one from HBO's site.