|
Post by caucasoididiot on May 28, 2012 18:36:06 GMT -5
i haven't seen the last ep, but i believe the first ep also starts with contemporaneous shots of that village so it's a bit of a clever bookend. quite a series, that. Now that you mention it, I think you're right. It really is a remarkable series. Reviewing the last episode today, I re-realized that that gentleman standing in front of a Lancaster, discussing his own experience in Bomber Command and making some very cogent observations of the psychology of veterans and their relationships with non-veterans is series historical adviser Noble Frankland. I haven't seen the Burns documentary, but it does sound disappointing. I suppose we in the US do want a "comfort war," which brushfires like Korea or Viet Nam could never be. Depending on how long the series was, I could see dropping the Pearl Harbour conspiracy angle, as there isn't really a lot to it. On the atomic bombings, I personally don't believe that the deteriorating relationship with the Soviets was decisive in that decision, but it was certainly part of the context in which it was made and ought to have been touched on. I do recollect my most respected history prof observing once that Burns does tend to be very US-centric. I think it is a fair cop, so what you're saying doesn't surprise me too much. On your observation of the effect of the war on the US, analogous to Nietzsche's "He who fights dragons too long becomes a dragon himself," I think there's a great deal of truth to it, though I'd argue that it was more the Cold War that was to blame. Still, the Cold War flowed from the Good War, and not to acknowledge that is a great omission. In Burns' defence, that could quickly grow into an immense topic, one that you really have to trace back even to the Great War to set in context. Still, I remember the way he outlined Reconstruction at the end of The Civil War as quite deftly handled. Sounds like he didn't succeed as well here.
|
|
|
Post by BJ on May 28, 2012 20:43:21 GMT -5
From what I've heard, the whole point of The War was to show a basic US perspective of WWII, for the types of people who watch PBS. Conspiracy theories, Cold War events, etc. simply weren't part of the plan.
I caught about 45 minutes yesterday and found it interesting, catching some Belgian stuff, a massacre of Germans who had surrendered, the landing at Iwo Jima, and a piece on combat fatigue. In that short time, I learned more about the Pacific than the entire series "The Pacific", which I thought was terrible. FWIW, that miniseries came out 3 years after The War.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on May 29, 2012 9:55:18 GMT -5
Fair enough, I shouldn't criticize too much second hand. About what's the runtime?
The view of WW2 in fiction (admittedly only tangentially topical to this thread) is interesting, with a spate of really cynical treatments during the Viet Nam era but then being rehabilitated later. While I don't want to go too far down that road . . . I mean, at the risk of being dogmatic, the US was on the right side . . . there are definitely aspects that are worth a jaundiced eyeball. One thing that even The World at War never explores is the WW2 history of Iran, something that's worth having a sense of these days.
|
|
|
Post by BJ on May 29, 2012 14:11:44 GMT -5
I think it's 7 episodes that average about 2 hours each, so fairly long.
As you said, I think it's tough to be too critical of Americans during WWII, simply because of what they were up against. As time goes by, and first hand memories of the 1940s die off, I'm sure that will change. Unfortunately, the lack of eye witnesses will allow people to make things up, but I guess that's the nature of history.
It's kind of embarrassing, but my knowledge of the middle east during the war is basically zero, and with Africa I only have a basic idea of Rommel and Rick Blaine's heroics. I guess those stories aren't as sexy for an American audience, because they don't seem to get much air time. Hell, if it weren't for a project for an English class, I'd barely know anything about the Ottoman Empire (and later Israel) of WWI, which is kind of a big deal.
Speaking of WWII fiction during Vietnam, I watched Kelly's Heroes a few months ago. It was unusual seeing such a light hearted view of that war, with no one painted as particularly good or bad. As a quick review, it was hilarious and the production values were better than a lot of serious war films. It was particularly hilarious seeing a Vietnam style hippie/new-age soldier fighting in WWII.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on May 29, 2012 16:20:39 GMT -5
"Oddball" is one of my favourite Donald Sutherland characters. I really like to pop that movie in every once in a while.
The movie adaptation of Catch-22 was about the same time, and while I know some people who think it ruined the book, the basic ambivalence about the war is definitely there in Heller, himself a vet. I've read more than one account by US GIs saying that even at the time they felt US airpower was used so heavy handedly that the "collateral damage" was unjustifiable. Certainly the French jubilation at their liberation was somewhat tempered by Anglo-American air having systematically razed their national rail system. The operational necessity of that is apparent, but one can also empathize with the French reaction.
That's something it's important to remember, I think. Just a little while ago I was listening to an NPR interview with a journalist from Yemen who was arguing that the constantly buzzing US drones there probably benefit al'Qaeda politically more than they hurt them materially.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on May 30, 2012 7:31:21 GMT -5
From what I've heard, the whole point of The War was to show a basic US perspective of WWII, for the types of people who watch PBS. Conspiracy theories, Cold War events, etc. simply weren't part of the plan. well, that's fair enough, but then burns probably shouldn't have gotten into the whole why-did-we-drop-the-bomb issue. at one point he even has an interview with an old lady who seems to get a little glimmer of bloodlust in her eyes when she talks about the bombing and her certitude that it averted the need for a ground invasion. here's the thing. there's a great book called "history wars" about an exhibit they planned in 1995 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the bombing in the air and space museum. they tried to have a balanced presentation, talking about different ideas as to why the bomb was dropped -- including at least one that's uncontroversial, that it was, among other things, an experiment. hiroshima in particular was targeted because it was one of the very few japanese cities left relatively untouched by conventional bombing, which made it a good test case. well, that is, among other things, unethical human experimentation on a mass scale. i'm not necessarily against it because it was a different time and everyone was falling all over each other to see who could commit the most heinous atrocities. but it's still a fact, and should be mentioned, if you're going to get into motivations at all. anyway, they had this whole thing set up, along with some mention of the effect on japanese civilians of the bomb, also mentioning the mainstream narrative about avoiding a conventional invasion. but then the VFW swooped in and howled bloody murder until the museum curators buckled, removed all the aspects of the exhibit that were in any way controversial, inconvenient or, really, remotely interesting at all, and we were left with basically a boring pro-war propaganda piece about how awesome the bombing was and how great america is. it's just lousy, amateurish history, is the part that really bothers me, and Ken Burns, who's allegedly a gifted historian of some kind, should really know better. I caught about 45 minutes yesterday and found it interesting, catching some Belgian stuff, a massacre of Germans who had surrendered, the landing at Iwo Jima, and a piece on combat fatigue. In that short time, I learned more about the Pacific than the entire series "The Pacific", which I thought was terrible. FWIW, that miniseries came out 3 years after The War. well, "The Pacific" is dramatic fiction, not a documentary, so if you were expecting to "learn" interesting facts about the war by watching it, you're probably going in with the wrong expectations. part of what people complain about with The Pacific, but i thought was actually a clever move, is its plotlessness and how the soldiers are mostly in the dark about the progress of the larger war. instead it's just an endless parade of gory horrors, day in and day out.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on May 30, 2012 8:20:53 GMT -5
Feels like we might be drifting into an Observer's Brain kind of area here, but just a couple of quick points:
I forget exactly when, but 20th Air Force set aside a number of Japanese cities as "virgin targets" once it was fairly clear that the bomb would be ready in time for a war shot. It's only an accident of the weather that Kokura wasn't the second city hit. "Bock's Car" was loitering over it for some time looking for a break in the clouds, needed under the visual bombing requirement of their orders. Not finding it, they diverted to Nagasaki.
I can't say that the idea of setting it up to gather data strikes me as terribly heinous aspect, though. Operational researchers were routinely trying to quantify and maximize the effectiveness of weapons and techniques, particularly new ones. All the cities on the list would have been hit eventually for their factory complexes and transportation infrastructure.
I think there's a tendency to view that decision in a modern context that simply isn't the one that existed at the time. Today, nuclear weapons are viewed as a category apart, an existential threat to humanity whose actual use is considered almost unthinkable and almost always justified only as a way to deter others from using them against oneself.
But in 1945 they were simply more efficient (in terms of delivery aircraft, anyway) ways of doing what all the combatants who were able had been doing and planning for many, many years: attacking the morale and productive ability of the enemy's civilian population. The question as framed to Truman really wasn't "should we use this thing?" but "why on earth wouldn't we?" Realistically, about the only alternative to busting cities would have been a demonstration burst, and given the tenor of the day the surprising thing is how much discussion that idea got.
I tend to come down on the issue concluding that the Allied bombing campaigns were justifiable, but it's a matter of balancing competing (im)moralities and I can respect others who conclude differently, provided they demonstrate they're clear on the question. There was a sort of flame war in the Japan Times over some sequalae to the Smithsonian Enola Gay controversy, and I remember one letter in which a guy wrote something to the effect of the conventional bombings being OK because civilians who chose to live next to war plants could just lump it, but the atomic bombings attacked too broad an area. Clearly this guy hadn't the foggiest notion of how WW2 strategic bombing was actually practiced, or, most likely, how many civilians were killed in typical ground campaigns (last estimate I saw on civilian casualties for the Okinawa invasion was ~200,000). Hiroshima and Nagasaki were clearly monstrous acts, but so were Tokyo, Yawata, Dresden, Hamburg, Coventry, Rotterdam, Shanghai . . . all the way back to Guernica.
I guess I should quit beating the dead horse, but it's my recurrent theme of moral questions being presented as artificially categorical when they are usually more slippery grey slopes. I suppose that is an argument for giving the question a fuller treatment in something like Burns' ducumentary, but how full is full enough? One of the fundamental aspects of writing history is that what you leave out is as crucial as what you include.
"Quick points," he says . . .
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on May 30, 2012 8:43:47 GMT -5
lol at "quick points." yeah, i mostly agree with most of this. it's not ken burns' failure to heap moral opproprium on US planners for the bombing, it's the crap history that bothers me. either don't get into it at all, and just stick to the great anecdotes of the soldiers in the field, or at least get into some of the gray areas as you mention. but, for instance, the interview with the old woman who affirmed us that she was quite sure the atomic bombings were justified because it made ground invasion unnecessary -- well, first, how would she know? what was her security clearance? we're meant to believe her because she's an emotionally appealing witness as the wife of a combat veteran, not because she was actually in any position of privileged knowledge. but also, the affirmation must have seemed strange to someone who knew nothing about the war because Burns never sees fit to even mention the doubts about the motivation for the bombing, so it wouldn't even be clear who the woman was responding to. presumably these alternative interpretations are so toxic for Burns that he felt the need to white-wash them, but he also needed to try and refute them through emotional appeal. in other words, crap history.
the point that the A-bombings weren't necessarily materially different than conventional bombing is also well taken. i've read that the allies, near the end, were specifically and systematically targeting residential areas in german cities, breaking them up into sectors and meticulously laying waste to them, one block to the next, essentially in an effort to depopulate the country. there was an obsession with the idea of depopulating japan too. again, the context makes it hard to be morally outraged, but the fact that human life was abstracted and transformed into analytics of this kind by the allies should at least be a part of the conversation. it seems to me that the agenda of the Ken Burnses and VFWs of the world is to take the whole topic off the table.
|
|
|
Post by Crowfan on May 30, 2012 9:03:01 GMT -5
Not to be nitpicky but Ken Burns is a documentary filmmaker, not a historian.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on May 30, 2012 9:06:24 GMT -5
Not to be nitpicky but Ken Burns is a documentary filmmaker, not a historian. apparently!
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on May 30, 2012 9:37:01 GMT -5
Not to be nitpicky but Ken Burns is a documentary filmmaker, not a historian. Hmm . . . but what should be the actual distinction there? True, a documentary is often meant to be entertaining as well as informative, in a way that a professional historical journal with peer-review and footnotes isn't, but that can go too far. Maybe the analogy would that between a bowl of oatmeal with a few raisins in it and a bowl of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs. It's hard to pin down precisely where, but somewhere in that spectrum a line is crossed. But again, not having seen this doc I can't be categorical on it. The history of strategic bombing is a long and tortuous one, going back to the first Zeppelin raids on London in 1915, through the interwar air theorists like Douhet and Mitchell, up through Spain and China and then into strategic accidents of the war itself. The British like to contend that the Germans started it, but when you look at RAF policy and procurement through the '30s and even '20s, it's clear they foresaw strategic bombing as the way they would conduct any future war. Ironically, it was fear of reliving the horrors of 1914~1918 trench warfare and its genocide of a generation of Europe's young men that prompted it, at least in part. There was a sense that while bombing cities erased the line between combatants and non-combatants, it might also be more quickly decisive and make the war short and sharp but ultimately less destructive overall. Trying to think of some goods documentaries on that. One of Dyer's segments treats it pretty well, and the World at War segment is not bad on its conduct during the war, including interviews with "Bomber" Harris himself, to whom they pose the morality question.
|
|
|
Post by BJ on May 30, 2012 15:43:10 GMT -5
well, "The Pacific" is dramatic fiction, not a documentary, so if you were expecting to "learn" interesting facts about the war by watching it, you're probably going in with the wrong expectations. part of what people complain about with The Pacific, but i thought was actually a clever move, is its plotlessness and how the soldiers are mostly in the dark about the progress of the larger war. instead it's just an endless parade of gory horrors, day in and day out. My point was that a 5 minute segment on Iwo Jima and a two minute interview with a battle fatigued soldier give a better understanding of the Pacific than the entire show of the same name. The Pacific is drama based on real life events, so I went into it expecting it to be informative and dramatically entertaining. It failed at both. I wasn't expecting to learn facts as if it were a documentary. I expected to get a feel of what the Pacific front was like, similar to the way I got a deeper understanding of E Company and western Europe from Band of Brothers. An endless parade of horrors with no plot can be interesting for a 2 hour film, but a 9 hour series needs something more. They simply repeated the "war is hell" theme over and over again until I didn't care anymore. If I had been watching this on HBO, I'd have never made it to the halfway point. Beyond that, the show was simply haphazard and poorly written, with no engaging characters, bad acting and two entire episodes wasted on cliche love stories. Without watching the extras, I never knew why they were on any particular island, what the objective was, or even who anyone was. I had to go online just to learn about John Basilone. Considering he's one of three Marines they focused on, that's pathetic. Lastly, even the title of the show was a mistake. In a show called the Pacific, you'd expect at least something on the Navy. This series makes them out to be a bunch of bus drivers sheltered from danger.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on May 31, 2012 9:40:56 GMT -5
well, "The Pacific" is dramatic fiction, not a documentary, so if you were expecting to "learn" interesting facts about the war by watching it, you're probably going in with the wrong expectations. part of what people complain about with The Pacific, but i thought was actually a clever move, is its plotlessness and how the soldiers are mostly in the dark about the progress of the larger war. instead it's just an endless parade of gory horrors, day in and day out. My point was that a 5 minute segment on Iwo Jima and a two minute interview with a battle fatigued soldier give a better understanding of the Pacific than the entire show of the same name. The Pacific is drama based on real life events, so I went into it expecting it to be informative and dramatically entertaining. It failed at both. I wasn't expecting to learn facts as if it were a documentary. I expected to get a feel of what the Pacific front was like, similar to the way I got a deeper understanding of E Company and western Europe from Band of Brothers. An endless parade of horrors with no plot can be interesting for a 2 hour film, but a 9 hour series needs something more. They simply repeated the "war is hell" theme over and over again until I didn't care anymore. If I had been watching this on HBO, I'd have never made it to the halfway point. Beyond that, the show was simply haphazard and poorly written, with no engaging characters, bad acting and two entire episodes wasted on cliche love stories. Without watching the extras, I never knew why they were on any particular island, what the objective was, or even who anyone was. I had to go online just to learn about John Basilone. Considering he's one of three Marines they focused on, that's pathetic. Lastly, even the title of the show was a mistake. In a show called the Pacific, you'd expect at least something on the Navy. This series makes them out to be a bunch of bus drivers sheltered from danger. but other than that it was pretty cool, right?
|
|
|
Post by BJ on May 31, 2012 14:26:04 GMT -5
Ha. I know I'm in the minority that didn't like the series, so I enjoy complaining about it whenever I get the chance. It's cathartic.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on May 31, 2012 14:36:05 GMT -5
Ha. I know I'm in the minority that didn't like the series, so I enjoy complaining about it whenever I get the chance. It's cathartic. that's exactly the thrill i get out of meticulously dismantling the horrific but widely loved "(500) Days of Summer" and then basking in the outrage i provoke. (i also was a little disappointed i didn't get in trouble for harshin' on "Enemy at the Gates," which i really liked a LOT less the second time i saw it...) i actually agree with you that the romantic subplot in Pacific was mostly tedious and Band of Brothers was better overall.
|
|