The Pacific

[Walsingham]

MC; I feel the need to remind you that US' and Commonwealth's economic strangleholds on Germany and Japan were the main background reasons of the war. (Yes they are classified as 2 seperate wars but the causes and effects are really tightly interlinked.)

 

Japanese might be a feudal / fascist / alien country at the time (they are still somewhat alien to european and middle east cultures) but "Backward militaristic monarchy attacks democracy" is just too broad and not really correct.

 

Not sure I can fully agree with this. Would you mind expanding your thesis?

[Monte Carlo]

MC; I feel the need to remind you that US' and Commonwealth's economic strangleholds on Germany and Japan were the main background reasons of the war. (Yes they are classified as 2 seperate wars but the causes and effects are really tightly interlinked.)

 

Japanese might be a feudal / fascist / alien country at the time (they are still somewhat alien to european and middle east cultures) but "Backward militaristic monarchy attacks democracy" is just too broad and not really correct.

 

Cronicler, I suspect that we were taught completely different versions of the origins of WW2. There was no significant economic stranglehold on Germany, just a military one. You can't even blame WW1 for it: German imperial expansion was late and lacklustre and the British Empire pre-dates it by a good 200 years.

 

As for Pearl Harbor - easily one of the most breath-takingly cynical and arrogant moves of WW2. Only Imperial Japan, in a frenzy of militaristic hubris, would have even dreamt of getting away with it.

 

It is interesting if a revisionist school of thought is developing that drops a (superficial) Marxist analysis over the causes of the war (Capitalism gives birth to Fascism redux). I can't agree with it, personally. Flawed peace after WW1? Yep. Imperial hangover? Open to offers. Age of Dictators? Warmer. Economic stranglehold? Nope.

[cronicler]

I know it is a very very "very" simplified view to look at things but I believe that for a global nation (any nation that manages to get his head up a bit and try to "act" strategically instead of being ruled by short sighted local politics) (like USA today) the main dictating factor is its (industries) apetite. And most nations lack the local resources to feed their needs. Coupled with the lack of / very limited amounts of production in the late colonial era. I know it is a simplistic but I believe Commonwealth's stomping on Germany after WW1 was the main... supporting and nurturing element that fed the ultra-nationalistic Nazi regime. Stomping on others and leaving them alive always creates more trouble down the road.

 

The modern countries are lucky that Communism was a real threat. If there wasn't someone else to hate, I don't think we (the modern and semi modern civilisation) could have survived.

 

 

 

MC: Hunger created by limited resources to feed the nations industry and a fascist, militarist and nationalist outlook was the drive behind Imperial Japan. At least this is what I got from my studies (and no we aren't taught "recent" history in schools. Up to High school that is. I didn't have history in uni.)

 

*Wasn't there a US (multinational?) ambargoe on Imperial Japan in the late 30's? Or am I mistaken? Sorry if that is the case.

Edited April 10, 2010 by cronicler

[Gorgon]

There was an oil embargo, that was the stated reason for Japans move against the US. Lets not forget that Japan invaded Manchuria and Korea simply because they felt a military adventure or two would solve their economic woes, they were partially right. The idea was to blackmail the US into a settlement, to give them a dose of the same gunboat diplomacy the region had been on the receiving end of in the unequal treaties. and in doing so settle an old score.

 

Of course if the US didn't sue for peace the whole exercise would be doomed from the start, which is how it worked out.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Gorgon

[Hiro Protagonist]

My biggest problem is that the main actors are weedy nerdy skinny ass emo frankfurters. Especially Jurassic Park boy (Sledge). I don't really believe in his acting when he tries to go hardcore. And John Basilone was a towering superman, who would have looked quite at home on the cover of duke nukem or castle wolfenstein. They royally flapped Iwo Jima. I know in Part 8, they wanted to tell Basilone's story, but Iwo Jima would normally be considered the climax of the Pacific Theatre but we got 12 mins of it. I think 3 or 4 John Wayne movies did the Pacific better. I feel the series has been a disjointed mess with some flashes of brilliance in a sea of poo.

 

- the pacific

the definition of getting it wrong

[kirottu]

I watched first four episodes and then got bored.

[Kor Qel Droma]

I'll admit that the series seems a little all over the place, but episode nine was pretty damn good, IMO.

[Monte Carlo]

We are up to episode 7 here in the UK, and it's ok as far as it goes but I agree that is remains disjointed and with poor character development.

 

I hope if they do another (US forces from the Torch landings in N. Africa to the Gothic Line would be good, a la the Big Red One) then I hope they return to the BoB tighter narrative.

[Walsingham]

We are up to episode 7 here in the UK, and it's ok as far as it goes but I agree that is remains disjointed and with poor character development.

 

I hope if they do another (US forces from the Torch landings in N. Africa to the Gothic Line would be good, a la the Big Red One) then I hope they return to the BoB tighter narrative.

 

Meh. If they do another I'd be happier with Korea. Not nearly enough material on that war. Arguably far more relevant to today's conflicts.

[Monte Carlo]

Korea... yes I agree under-reported but for many it's a cold-war hiccup. I don't think that, it's just a perception that exists. Hollywood fast-forwarded to Vietnam, I think because it was more relevant to lefty, anti-war baby-boomer directors (I exempt Ollie Stone, he might be a lefty anti-war baby-boomer, but he had the cojones to become a combat infantryman and he makes interesting if not slightly deluded movies).

 

I can't help but think that the "US fighting man in WW2" cycle that Hanks and Spielberg have started isn't finished. A trilogy seems right, and N.Africa and Italy is the one major US theatre of war they've not covered. I suppose their problem would be portraying egomanical General Mark Clarke in a positive light, or indeed plastering over the fact that the CiC Italy was British. Indeed, the most iconic battle, Cassino, was largely (although not exclusively) Commonwealth affair.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Monte Carlo

[Walsingham]

They'd be well advised to avoid Cassino since Clarke's glory hunting rendered every sacrifice on that line almost pointless. If there has ever been a general I should like to dig up and piss on it's him.

[Monte Carlo]

As a proud Texan I suspect Wrath of Dagon would agree too.

[Monte Carlo]

BTW the last book I read on Cassino was a bit revisionist on Clarke. It acknowledged his vanity and paranoia but insisted that he was a much better battlefield commander than previous military historians have given him credit for.

 

Although I'm more of an armchair general than a professional military historian, I beg to differ. Sacrificing the Texan division for more column inches?

 

Lastly, my post about Cassino being a Commonwealth affair ommitted the valiant and decisive Polish brigade, effusive apologies. My bad.

 

Cheers

MC

Edited May 12, 2010 by Monte Carlo

[Walsingham]

It wasn't just the texan division. The entire operational plan was to break through the line, and get Clarke's army astride the escape routes. Stop the escape and the Germans wouldbn't be able to continue their stubborn defence, that was costing so many lives. Let them go and they'd just retreat to a new defensive line, and the process begins again.

 

Clarke's actual behaviour was to send his army and himself towards Rome, and only a tiny force to 'try' to block the reteating Germans.

 

Every book I've read on Cassino points out that Clarke ignored both the long-established plan, and specific orders to behave as planned. It is simply not credible that this was an oversight. I've spoken to Richard Holmes and Duncan Anderson, both international authorities on military history about this, and they are unequivocal.

 

You have to remember that this was a man who was obsessed with publicity. He refused to be photographed from what he considered his 'bad' side. For him, being first general in Rome was more important than anything else.

 

Perhaps the saddest thing is that neither Clarke's presence in Rome, nor the heroic sacrifices on the slopes of Monte Cassino were very much noticed in Britain and America, since they were overshadowed by events in Normandy. Although to say this is to assert that it is less sad and shameful that while Clarke went on to have a full and celebrated career 192 men from the so-called 'mutiny' at Salerno were vilified and some given the harshest sentences.