Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)

ZzZ · #1 May 29th, 2001, 11:38 AM

O.k.

just a telegram from me.

1.) I'm living in Germany. The movie is not in theatres here yet. So I haven't seen it.

2.) I first wanted to see it because I'm specially interested in the Pearl Harbor incident. I already visited Hawaii and the Arizona Memorial and read lots of books and articles about it. I also know Tora Tora Tora.

3.) Later I decided NOT to see that movie because all major german movie critics called it historically and politically inaccurate.

4.) I personally don't focus on ship designs and stuff like that. I want a true perspective behind the mask of official statements. What is the truth? Today many historians believe that the U.S. government knew about the Pearl Harbor attack before. Some even say Roosevelt provoked the attack on Pearl Harbour to have a reason for the US entering WWII. I don't know yet whether this part is implemented into the movie or if there will only be some nasty yellow Kamikaze pilots, that kill innocent Americans. But I will go and see for myself.

5.) The winner writes history - that's damn true. And war is ugly. But when you look back my personal opinion is that you should stick to historical details as much as you could. Unfortunately Hollywood movies nearly never achieve this.

My greatest disappointment on this was Private Ryan. Did you notice that there was not one afroamerican soldier in the whole movie? And that right after Amistad which has been a financial desaster for Dreamworks and Spielberg in special ... What I read in books says that about 30% of the US forces personell had been afroamerican people. Most of them in the lower rank (cannonfood ... that kind of peole that most Generals would use for a mission like Omaha beach).

An anti-war movie for me should never contain hope and it must show both sides of the fighting forces. Does anyone here know some German anti-war movies ... like Stalingrad, Das Boot (a Wolfgang Petersen film BTW) or Die Br�cke (sorry, don't know the english titels)? They are great ... realistic, hopeless, show what everyone would experience when being part of a war ... you would hate it. This is what most Hollywood dierctors never found out ...

ZzZ

jc173 · #2 May 29th, 2001, 12:04 PM

quote:
Originally posted by ZzZ:
My greatest disappointment on this was Private Ryan. Did you notice that there was not one afroamerican soldier in the whole movie? And that right after Amistad which has been a financial desaster for Dreamworks and Spielberg in special ... What I read in books says that about 30% of the US forces personell had been afroamerican people. Most of them in the lower rank (cannonfood ... that kind of peole that most Generals would use for a mission like Omaha beach).
ZzZ

I know this is offtopic, but just a comment. Back in WWII the American military was segregated ie Afro-Americans (and even Japanese Americans to some extent) served in different units from caucasian Americans. You can probably find a listing of such units somewhere. As for the later parts of the movie I don't recall the 101st Airborne (or was it the 82nd in the movie?) having a segregated battalion or regimental combat team at the time. I could be wrong about that though.

Possum · #3 May 29th, 2001, 12:12 PM

ZzZ, let me offer a bit of a reply

The western allies had been unhappy with the japanese since the mid 1930's, chiefly over japanese military expansionism on the chinese mainland.

In about September of 1941, the US, UK, and Netherlands placed a joint oil embargo on the japanese. The japanese had no oil deposits of their own at this time, and were totally dependent on oil imports. Since the US, UK, and Netherlands between them controlled over 90% of the world oil exports at this time, the embargo meant that japanese industrial society could not continue to function any longer than their stockpiles would Last.

Please note that I say "controlled by". Oil was already being exported from the middle east by this time, but it was exclusively under the control of Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, or one of the american oil companies.

The concessions demanded by the allies in return for lifting the oil embargo were considered unacceptably humiliating by the japanese, and so the attack on the western allies was planned and executed.

It is worth noting that admiral Yamamoto considered the attack on Pearl Harbor something of a failure, since none of the american carriers were caught in port.

But yes, oil was the prime japanese goal in launching the second world war. One of their main early goals was seizure of the oilfields of java. I have read that the people of java hated their dutch colonial masters with such passion that they at first willingly helped the japanese. This willing cooperation from the locals enabled the japanese to quickly put captured oil facilities back into production. I have also read that the crude of java was so pure that the IJN were able to pump it straight into their ships and burn it like ships bunker oil. The Last 2 anecdotes are from a book by an IJN submarine captain.

Did Roosevelt expect to be attacked? We'll never know, but if he did not expect it, he was a damned fool.

Please note that none of the above is intended to excuse the behavior of the japanese military in WWII, only to explain it.

[This message has been edited by Possum (edited 29 May 2001).]

dogscoff · #4 May 29th, 2001, 12:23 PM

Atrocities - you recommended this film by comparing it to Thin Red Line, Titanic and Private Ryan. I haven't seen Private Ryan but those others are two of the dullest films I've seen in the Last few years.

I get the feeling that this film is just another historical exploitation from Hollywood, hoping to drag in the dollars with some gung-ho patriotism, empty talk about "historical accuracy" and big explosions.

Sorry, but I'll probably be giving this one a miss.

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

ZzZ · #5 May 29th, 2001, 12:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by jc173:
I know this is offtopic, but just a comment. Back in WWII the American military was segregated ie Afro-Americans (and even Japanese Americans to some extent) served in different units from caucasian Americans. You can probably find a listing of such units somewhere. As for the later parts of the movie I don't recall the 101st Airborne (or was it the 82nd in the movie?) having a segregated battalion or regimental combat team at the time. I could be wrong about that though.

Hmmmm .... good point. I would have to check that eventually.

I have more criticism for that movie but normally I hesitate to post that into international forums. To many idiots see that I am Germany and instantly call me (or my family) Nazi which makes me very angry.

I personally don't like how Germany soldiers are usually shown in WWII movies (especially some old french or italian movies and - of course - most of the Hollywood stuff). My grandfather served the Wehrmacht but he was no Nazi. It is sad when you listen to his storys ... how big the political pressure was for everyone. Even most of the German generals in WWII hadn't been Nazis at all (some even tried to kill Hitler).

In the movies the German soldiers are all looking like some fanatic monsters ... showing no mercy. Believe me they were also full of fear and they don't like killing other people more than anyone else on this planet. The Nazi leaders had been perverted *******s and they knew how to control the masses (especially those who weren't that clever) but the average soldier was just someone like you and me. That's what most directors forget in their movies. There were good and bad people on both sides. And it seems that Pearl Harbour makes no difference here (regarding the Japanese). I will see ... soon.

ZzZ

Nitram Draw · #6 May 30th, 2001, 01:19 AM

I agree with you ZzZ.
It's the same with the Vietnamese but movies tend to make the soldiers a substitute for the leaders of the countries with all of their bad traits expressed through the individual soldiers.
Most US movies portray the VC, the Nazi's and the Russians soldiers as emotionless, cruel, psychopathic robots when in reality they were people just like us, as afraid, homesick, weary and as duty bound as our soldiers. It's unfortunate that movies do this, for it minimizes the true sacrifices that all war veterans made.
While I like a good action movie as well as anyone, the movies that portray wars effect on the people involved always make me think and realize how horrible and usually pointless war is. Don't ever be afraid to speak up or your children will accept these false images of war as the truth.

ZzZ · #7 May 30th, 2001, 01:49 AM

Thank you for your posting Nitram. It's good to hear such an opinion from an US citizen. I also think that the average intelligence of people in this forum is much higher than in the public.

Let's just hope for better (anti-)war movies in the future.

It is interesting that I can easily accept the villian in an action (not war) movie to be just the way you described the German/Vietnamese/Russian/etc... soldiers. It is really a big difference if there is a historic reference for something.

ZzZ