For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Will Tom Hanks Screw Up “The Pacific?” Sounds Like He Might
Written By : Duane Lester

Tom Hanks has brought more attention to the stories of World War II than one man can be expected to bring. However, a recent article in Time magazine makes me wonder what he is going to do with stories from the Pacific Theater.

The Pacific, his new 10-hour epic about the Pacific theater in World War II, plays out against a very different backdrop, when the country is weary of war and American exceptionalism is a much tougher sell. World War II in the European theater was a case of massive armies arrayed against an unambiguous evil. The Pacific war was mainly fought by isolated groups of men and was overlaid by a sense that our foes were fundamentally different from us. In that sense, the war in the Pacific bears a closer relation to the complex war on terrorism the U.S. is waging now, making the new series a trickier prospect but one with potential for more depth and resonance. “Certainly, we wanted to honor U.S. bravery in The Pacific,” Hanks says. “But we also wanted to have people say, ‘We didn’t know our troops did that to Japanese people.’ “

Emphasis mine.

Let’s start with the first bolded section of text. What do they mean “different from us?”

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?”

Ok, back the truck up, Hanks.

We didn’t want to annihilate the Japanese because they were different. We wanted to annihilate the Japanese for this:

2,402 personnel were killed. 1,282 were wounded. As if that were not reason enough, consider the story of Ralph Ignatowski, as told by Iwo Jima flag raiser, John Bradley, from the book, “Flags of Our Fathers“:

“I have tried so hard to block this out. To forget it. We could choose a buddy to go in with. My buddy was a guy from Milwaukee. We were pinned down in one area. Someone elsewhere fell injured and I ran to help out, and when I came back my buddy was gone. I couldn’t figure out where he was. I could see all around, but he wasn’t there. And nobody knew where he was.

A few days later someone yelled that they’d found him. They called me over because I was a corpsman. The Japanese had pulled him underground and tortured him. His fingernails… his tongue… It was terrible. I’ve tried hard to forget all this.”

Many years later, in researching my father’s life, I asked Cliff Langley, Doc’s co-corpsman, about the discovery of Iggy’s body. Langley told me it looked to him as though Ralph Ignatowski had endured just about every variety of physical cruelty imaginable.

“Both his arms were fractured,” Langley said. “They just hung there there like arms on a broken doll. He had been bayoneted repeatedly. The back of his head had been smashed in.”

Other reports say Iggy “had been tortured in the cave by the Japanese for three days, during which time they also cut out his eyes, cut off his ears, smashed in his teeth, and cut off his genitalia and stuffed them into his mouth.”

in 1946, Time Magazine detailed another instance of Japanese war crimes – cannibalism:

By 1945, when the blockaded Bonins had no fresh meat, he hatched the idea that liver would soothe his gnawing stomach pains. The islands’ commander, fat, bullnecked Lieut. General Yoshio Tachibana, had ordered all captured U.S. flyers executed. That was the chance Matoba had been waiting for.

Cannibal Feast. At least two aviators were beheaded publicly by Matoba’s own 308th Battalion, to buoy the troops’ morale. In each case, the liver was cut from the still-warm bodies, delivered to Matoba’s cook, cut into strips and served in sukiyaki. At one gay party, where the cannibal dish was washed down with sake, Tachibana was Matoba’s guest. That night, during a U.S. air attack, Matoba boasted that enemy bombs could not hurt him because he had eaten the enemy’s flesh.

Other unit commanders who wanted a morale-booster for their own men were given the privilege of staging the executions of flyers captured in their bivouac areas. On at least two occasions the livers of the executed men were served in the officers’ messes while strips of flesh cut from the legs were used to flavor enlisted men’s soup.

Do I need to go into what happened on the Battan Death March?

Will Hanks cover that, so viewers can say, “‘We didn’t know our troops the Japanese troops did that to Japanese people our people.’ “?

Or will this be a rewriting of history? Let’s hope Tom does right by the men who fought and died on those islands, so far away from home.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

This was cross posted at All American Blogger. Stop by and check it out.  While you are there, sign up for a free subscription.

0
  • Smithwick

    Inadvertently he was right (in a way, sorta). It is like the war on terror. When insane leftists say we just want to kill the terrorists because they are different the reality is that we want to kill them because they directly attacked us. Similarly when he says we just wanted to defeat the Japanese because they were different he really means because they direct attacked us.

    It’s just a code. Just translate it properly and his comment makes perfect sense:

    When they say we only want to kill x “because they are different” it means “in self defense”. Unless that is in reference to someone else wanting to kill us, in which case it means “because we didn’t kowtow to their demands”.

    Pretty simple, just like learning to translate “freedom fighter” in to “murderous terrorist” or “civilian casualties” in to “carefully staged PR moments arranged by previously mentioned freedom fighters”.

  • Smithwick

    But yeah, sounds like he might screw this one up. Too bad, I was pretty excited when I saw they were doing a Band of Brothers type mini-series set in the Pacific.

    Oh well, I do look forward to learning how we started that war and managed to prevent the Japanese from surrendering to us for so long (theirs was a culture that valued peace and tolerance above all else).

  • President_Friedman

    Tom Hanks has made enough good films and series about WWII that I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. I’ll be watching this series, we’ll see how it goes.

  • Mike_M

    There’s no doubt that WWII propaganda is considered racist by today’s standards. However, this country went out of its way to keep the peace with the Japanese as they murdered and looted their way around the Pacific Rim. The only thing we ever did to their country prior to Pearl Harbor was the oil embargo.

  • D-Vega

    The oil embargo crippled them, Mike.

    I will give Mr. Hanks the BOTD too.

    We should see it before we judge it. The right was hysterical enough over Avatar.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    I think there will be bits about racism and how the Japanese were portrayed at the time (and it was pretty awful) but overall I expect it will be fair and well presented. Hanks is just the producer so while he has input he doesn’t decide how the film is written or directed. After Band of Brothers, I’m willing to give him a lot of good will. Atrocious Dan Brown movies, leftist activism, and stupid statements he makes aren’t helping any but he’s still got a lot left.

  • http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

    Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?

    No, not really. Last I checked we were fighting terrorists and the Iraqis and Afghanis were on our side in that fight.

    I guess Hollywood liberals must be ridiculously racist by nature if they think this whole war is about wiping out people who are “different” from us.

    The oil embargo crippled them, Mike.

    Oh, they were “crippled” were they?

    Well golly, that sure justified the cold-blooded murder of 2,402 Americans.

    Wherever would we be without people like you to point these things out to us, D-Vega?

  • rjschwarz

    I think there will be bits about racism and how the Japanese were portrayed at the time (and it was pretty awful) . Well I guess that would be Hollywood and the Democrat Administration of the time, not the US Military so much.

    Snark aside, I think people lose the righteous anger pretty quick and the need to remind people why they fight has to be done, and perhaps overdone. That doesn’t mean that the people are actually racist, or that the racism shown in the propaganda was the actual reason why we fight, its just pushing the most emotional buttons possible to get any response when people are sick to death of the unease of an ongoing conflict.

  • redriverted

    It has always mystified me that the Bataan Death March has never been given the full measure it deserves. I think that Hollywood is afraid to touch it because of the level of brutality inflicted on Americans, and that goes against the meta-narrative that Americans are the natural aggressors in any conflict.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    The right was hysterical enough over Avatar.

    If by “hysterical” you mean “absolutely right, as openly and repeatedly bragged by the writer/director,” then yes.

  • http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

    It has always mystified me that the Bataan Death March has never been given the full measure it deserves. I think that Hollywood is afraid to touch it because of the level of brutality inflicted on Americans, and that goes against the meta-narrative that Americans are the natural aggressors in any conflict.

    I disagree. If the recent fad of “torture porn” movies is any indication, Hollywood positively loves showing brutality inflicted on Americans.

    No, I think the real reason is Hollywood is uncomfortable showing non-Americans (particularly ones of a non-caucasian persuasion) in a negative light. Doesn’t matter if the events depicted are based in fact, you just can’t portray non-whites and/or non-Americans in an unsympathetic manner. Why, people might actually get the idea that some people living outside America might actually be BAD people as opposed to eternal victims of right-wing capitalist oppression!

  • http://kingofsiam kingofsiam

    The Japanese empire was just as bad, if not worse than the Nazis. They gave us, and the chinese and many other nations every reason to hate them and want to kill them all.

  • AF_Vet

    The oil embargo crippled them, Mike.

    That’s right, your honor….she was wearing a short skirt and a buttoned-down blouse….she was asking to be raped! (shakes head at Vega)

    I will give Mr. Hanks the BOTD too.

    Your perogative, Vega

    The right was hysterical enough over Avatar.

    And rightly so. It was every bit the anti-progress, anti-technology, anti-civilization, anti-military, anti-business, anti-western left-wing masturbation fest I suspected it would be before I saw it. And at the end of the movie, I was not disappointed.

    Sure looked pretty, though.

  • http://Kingfisher Kingfisher

    The right was hysterical enough over Avatar.
    Posted by D-Vega
    2010-03-10 16:59:38

    Actually, Vega, it was the left but for a different reason. “Avatar” played to the libs’ fears about corporate greed, military strength, etc.

    What was truly ironic about “Avatar” was that the movie played up to the usual case of corporate greed but every penny from ticket sales went to a large corporation. In short, libs paid lots of money to a big corporation to go to a movie that criticized big corporations.

  • http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

    The oil embargo crippled them, Mike.

    And why did the US cut off their oil from us Vega? Nixon supposes you view what the Japanese did at Nanking and all over China as a misunderstanding.

  • tblrk2006

    There’s no doubt that WWII propaganda is considered racist by today’s standards.
    Posted by Mike_M
    2010-03-10 16:47:45

    Thats because we have lost the will to demonize our enemies.

  • Mike_M

    “The oil embargo crippled them, Mike.”

    Doesn’t mean we wanted to “annihilate them because they were different”.

    And yeah, when a country is brazenly invading its neighbors with the expressed purpose of stealing their resources and turning their people into slave labor, denying to sell them the resources to do so is a perfectly ethical and moral thing to do.

  • NorthernCanuck

    The oil embargo crippled them
    Posted by D-Vega

    Sounds like a justification of War For Oil.

  • whats_up

    What was truly ironic about “Avatar” was that the movie played up to the usual case of corporate greed but every penny from ticket sales went to a large corporation. In short, libs paid lots of money to a big corporation to go to a movie that criticized big corporations.

    Posted by Kingfisher
    2010-03-10 20:00:42

    A movie that we were told on here no one would go to and wouldnt make any money, those conservative predictions again.

  • blkdragon

    “The oil embargo crippled them, Mike” ~ D Vega

    Yep, it crippled them so much they were running roughshod over the entire Pacific Rim. It hurt them so much they had invaded and were in control of China, most of south Asia, the Pacific Islands, and had even started attacking Australian holdings.

    They were so crippled they made a surprise attack on the American Pacific Fleet as the precursor for an invasion of Hawaii and eventually the West Coast.

    They sure were crippled.

  • whats_up

    Yep, it crippled them so much they were running roughshod over the entire Pacific Rim. It hurt them so much they had invaded and were in control of China, most of south Asia, the Pacific Islands, and had even started attacking Australian holdings.

    They were so crippled they made a surprise attack on the American Pacific Fleet as the precursor for an invasion of Hawaii and eventually the West Coast.

    They sure were crippled.

    Posted by blkdragon
    2010-03-11 10:23:19

    This shows how much of history you dont understand. The reason that Japan decided to attack the United States much sooner than they had planned was exactly the oil issue, that is the same issue that drove them to invade Southeast Asia, was their oil supplies. Also Japan never had serious plans to invade the United States, they were hoping to cripple us with one might blow and then we would surrender. The Japanese Naval High Command understood that a protracted war with the United States was a losing proposition.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    It never fails that leftists try to rewrite history to make the enemies of the US seem better and reasonable and the US seem worse and more awful.

    Yet they always seem to want to live in the US and benefit from it’s wealth, resources, and safety.

  • whats_up

    Posted by Christopher_Taylor
    2010-03-11 11:02:29

    CT,

    What crap, history has not been rewritten, Japan was incredibly brutal during the war, committing numerous atrocities, they have been well documented by historians. Why would you feel the need to lie like this?

  • NorthernCanuck

    The reason that Japan decided to attack the United States much sooner than they had planned…
    …they were hoping to cripple us with one might blow and then we would surrender.
    Posted by whats_up
    2010-03-11 10:45:25

    They were planning to attack in any case, but had to do so earlier than their own timetable would have preferred? And they hoped to cause surrender via might blow (hmm, like the reasoning behind the nukes)?
    Seems the US had plenty of justified reason to wipe them out without falling on the racism sword.

  • Smithwick

    “The reason that Japan decided to attack the United States much sooner than they had planned ”

    So they were planning on doing it anyway, but we forced them to launch their aggressive war for oil?

    Funny how with the right ethnicity/religion you can get leftists to defend preemptive wars of aggression that are a very blatant resource grab. Also torture, slavery, and genocide.

    Seriously, you are blaming the US for being attacked because we had the audacity to cut off trade with a vicious imperialist power bent on gobbling up the entire pacific and enslaving all others they deemed racially inferior. I know your type doesn’t much care for the US, but is it possible that we weren’t the bad guys on December 7th, 1941?

  • Smithwick

    If it helps we had a proudly socialist president at that time.

  • D-Vega

    Funny how everything must be the preconceived claptrap with you all.

    I never said the U.S. deserved PH or was asking for it. That is only an attempt to cloud the fact of the matter.

    But the facts remain the facts. We were on a collision course with Japan. Because of their imperialism and brutality.

    PH was the catalyst for our involvement, not “We wanted to annihilate the Japanese for this. (PH)” That makes it seem like we were wholly neutral before the attack, which is not true.

    We were’nt out to annihilate them either. We wanted to stop them, but didn’t have the will to committ to war. The embargo also included their assets, and iron/steel.

    I am not “making the enemies of the US seem better and reasonable and the US seem worse and more awful.”

    As with other things, I am relying on the actual truth, not some boilplate-jingo-monologue.

  • D-Vega

    Nobody said we were bad guys, Smithwick. You should pay attention, or read a history book.

    And why did the US cut off their oil from us Vega? Nixon supposes you view what the Japanese did at Nanking and all over China as a misunderstanding.

    As usual, Nixon, your posturing is of little substance.

    We didn’t give a shit about the Chinese. We just wanted Japan to halt expansion. If they would have kept their ambitions to China, we would have been fine and even lifted the embargo.

    The Japanese wanted all of Indochina. And they attacked because they refused our demands and wouldn’t have been able to hold out much longer without the fuel and resources that the embargo kept from them.

  • whats_up

    Seriously, you are blaming the US for being attacked because we had the audacity to cut off trade with a vicious imperialist power bent on gobbling up the entire pacific and enslaving all others they deemed racially inferior. I know your type doesn’t much care for the US, but is it possible that we weren’t the bad guys on December 7th, 1941?

    Posted by Smithwick
    2010-03-11 13:59:56

    WE arent blaming the US for being attacked, where did you possibly get that idea, more conservative bullshit at play. Fuck you are clueless, please show us any posting that claims we blamed the US for being attacked. IDIOT!!

  • Smithwick

    Sorry D/WU but justifying their attack by saying that our “oil embargo crippled them” is a defense of the imperial Japanese. You should note that the embargo came after a great many atrocities on their part, it wasn’t simply us being mean and racist to those poor oppressed foreigners.

    Consider this hypothetical scenario for a moment; Saudi Arabia falls to an anti-US revolution and cuts us off from oil exports (maybe even gets some other nations to go along with this embargo). So we launch a surprise attack, crippling what military they have in order to secure their oil resources for further economic expansion in the region (through military conquest of course).

    Would either of you explain that as; well . . that embargo crippled our economy so it makes sense? Or would it be; typical fascist americans willing to kill to prop up corporate interests!

    Hate to say it but when you justify behaviors in certain groups that you would condemn in others that does amount to supporting one over the other.

  • D-Vega

    It doesn’t justify the attack, Smith. It explains why it happened.

    The Japanese could have accepted our terms, but they didn’t want to, and declared war instead. It’s as simple as that.

  • whats_up

    Sorry D/WU but justifying their attack by saying that our “oil embargo crippled them” is a defense of the imperial Japanese. You should note that the embargo came after a great many atrocities on their part, it wasn’t simply us being mean and racist to those poor oppressed foreigners.

    Posted by Smithwick
    2010-03-11 15:43:03

    That wasnt justifying their attack, that was explaining why it happened, you really are clueless arent you. Find those postings where anyone here has defended the Japanese? Ya didnt think so. Or are you such an idiot that you think they just got a wild hair one day and decided to attack America, get a clue man.

  • Smithwick

    D/WU I noticed you both ignored my hypothetical scenario. In that scenario, could either of you, even for an instant, imagine mentioning our need for their oil to further our conquests in a discussion on the merits of such a war? Yes or no.

  • D-Vega

    There are no merits to such things as conquering for resources, Smith.

    If that did happen, I know we would secure those oil fields. It wouldn’t be the “right” thing or “wrong” thing. It would be what it is.

    One thing we wouldn’t do is wholesale slaughter of everyone.

  • D-Vega

    I should correct that. There are merits to keeping radical Islam from controlling the world’s oil supply.

  • Smithwick

    So you wouldn’t attempt to explain our war of aggression in that scenario with “well we really needed that oil”?

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info