PDA

View Full Version : remember pearl habor.



bunkerratt
12-07-2005, 01:53 AM
just thought i would post it .. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifjust noticed i forgot the R in harbor...on the header .. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

bunkerratt
12-07-2005, 01:53 AM
just thought i would post it .. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifjust noticed i forgot the R in harbor...on the header .. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

The Avon Lady
12-07-2005, 02:39 AM
Respect.

RosenbauU73
12-07-2005, 05:31 AM
Hi
To all the Survivors and the FamilyÔ┬┤s of those u die I give you my profund affection,
may all rest in peace and they will never be forgottem http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif.
http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/pearlharbor/
I would love to go and pay my respect on the ArizonaÔ┬┤s memorial but its to far for me as I live in portugal but maybe I will go there some day.

NaturalBornGoth
12-07-2005, 05:53 AM
Also my regards to all who died and survived, Americans and Japanese alike. After all, most of these men who attacked Pearl Harbor on that morning were just following orders.

paulhager
12-07-2005, 06:31 AM
Since most of the folks here are history buffs, I recommend the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066473/). It was made in 1970 and remains the definitive cinematic treatment of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. All of the events and characters are historically accurate based upon the state of knowledge at the time the movie was made. I generally watch it every year on 7 December.

The_Silent_O
12-07-2005, 06:36 AM
In retropect to recent events, at least the Japanese were targeting military targets, albeit they messed up the diplomacy enroute to the war. Thus, it will always be known as a sinister pre-emptive strike.

That's not to excuse though, the multitude of atrocities that Imperial Japan inflicted upon South East Asia throughout the 30s and 40s. The more you read, the more horrible it gets.

But, I've got to hand it to Japanese Americans who put up with much persecution here in the USA while trying to prove their loyalties...



I highly recommend the movie "TORA, TORA, TORA" on a day like this.

The movie was groundbreaking because it was co-produced by both Japanese and American movie companies (and you can tell, if you are into the classic Japanese movies) and showed both sides of the buildup to the conflict. The beginning scene with the IJN sailors at attention to welcome Yamamoto on-board is still one of the most impressive scenes ever cut. And the music at that scene only adds to the martial beauty. The IJN at its apex.

But avoid AT ALL COSTS the modern movie "Pearl Harbor" with Benny Affleck, I was physically sick after seeing that movie,...such a disservice...

The_Silent_O
12-07-2005, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by paulhager:
Since most of the folks here are history buffs, I recommend the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066473/). It was made in 1970 and remains the definitive cinematic treatment of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. All of the events and characters are historically accurate based upon the state of knowledge at the time the movie was made. I generally watch it every year on 7 December. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man...do we think alike or WHAT!? I like it better than "Patton"...although the music in "Patton" is still one of the best soundtracks out there...

similtaneous post...

RosenbauU73
12-07-2005, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Silent_O:
But avoid AT ALL COSTS the modern movie "Pearl Harbor" with Benny Affleck, I was physically sick after seeing that movie,...such a disservice... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi
The only part that was ok was the atack it self it was well done that is what I think it was like we are in there 64 years ago and the rest of the film I did not like put a romance in war time,and dont see "Tora Tora Tora" for some years but is a very good film its a classic today they dont make films like on the old days http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

NaturalBornGoth
12-07-2005, 07:18 AM
I have to say i like both movies: "Tora! Tora! Tora!" and "Pearl Harbor". All you have to do is to diffentiate:

Tora! Tora! Tora! is movie about history.

Pearl Harbor is a piece of corny but (for me) entertaining fiction in front of a historical backdrop. Picture "Indiana Jones" or "Rocketeer" and you'll get the idea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I like both movies very much for what they are and i don't mind if a movie takes some liberties in order to entertain, as long as i make sure i know the facts and don't start to believe what they feed me in a pop corn flick like Pearl Harbor. I mean... Pearl Harbor is from Michael Bay, the director of Bad Boys, Armageddon, The Rock... we all knew what to expect and what not to expect, didn't we? Seriously! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HokumJeebs
12-07-2005, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Silent_O:

But avoid AT ALL COSTS the modern movie "Pearl Harbor" with Benny Affleck, I was physically sick after seeing that movie,...such a disservice... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I miss you more then Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
And that's an awful lot girl
And now, now you've gone away
And all I'm trying to say is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you

I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school
He was terrible in that film
I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part
He's way better than Ben Affleck
And now all I can think about is your smile
and that ****ty movie too
Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you

Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies?
I guess Pearl Harbor sucked
Just a little bit more than I miss you

IRONxMortlock
12-07-2005, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Silent_O:
I highly recommend the movie "TORA, TORA, TORA" on a day like this.

The movie was groundbreaking because it was co-produced by both Japanese and American movie companies (and you can tell, if you are into the classic Japanese movies) and showed both sides of the buildup to the conflict. The beginning scene with the IJN sailors at attention to welcome Yamamoto on-board is still one of the most impressive scenes ever cut. And the music at that scene only adds to the martial beauty. The IJN at its apex.

But avoid AT ALL COSTS the modern movie "Pearl Harbor" with Benny Affleck, I was physically sick after seeing that movie,...such a disservice... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes indeed! I saw this movie at the cinema when it came out and I walked out in disgust! It redefines the term "bad movie".

Tora, Tora, Tora is a fantastic movie and I highly recommend it also.

paulhager
12-07-2005, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Silent_O:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by paulhager:
Since most of the folks here are history buffs, I recommend the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066473/). It was made in 1970 and remains the definitive cinematic treatment of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. All of the events and characters are historically accurate based upon the state of knowledge at the time the movie was made. I generally watch it every year on 7 December. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man...do we think alike or WHAT!? I like it better than "Patton"...although the music in "Patton" is still one of the best soundtracks out there...

similtaneous post... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The music for both movies was composed by one of my favorites - the late, great Jerry Goldsmith (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000025/).

Other December movie viewing:
I'm probably going to watch Patton (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066206/) on 26 December, to celebrate the relief of Bastogne.

And, there's the all-time family favorite Christmas Eve movie, Die Hard (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095016/). My oldest daughter's favorite line: "Now I have a machine gun. Ho! Ho! Ho!"

paulhager
12-07-2005, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NaturalBornGoth:
I have to say i like both movies: "Tora! Tora! Tora!" and "Pearl Harbor". All you have to do is to diffentiate:

Tora! Tora! Tora! is movie about history.

Pearl Harbor is a piece of corny but (for me) entertaining fiction in front of a historical backdrop. Picture "Indiana Jones" or "Rocketeer" and you'll get the idea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've gotta disagree (de gustibus non est disputandum). I much prefer Pearl Harbor actress Kate Beckinsale (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000295/) in Underworld (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320691/) and Van Helsing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338526/). Now THAT'S Indiana Jones-type action.

The_Silent_O
12-07-2005, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by paulhager:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Silent_O:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by paulhager:
Since most of the folks here are history buffs, I recommend the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066473/). It was made in 1970 and remains the definitive cinematic treatment of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. All of the events and characters are historically accurate based upon the state of knowledge at the time the movie was made. I generally watch it every year on 7 December. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man...do we think alike or WHAT!? I like it better than "Patton"...although the music in "Patton" is still one of the best soundtracks out there...

similtaneous post... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The music for both movies was composed by one of my favorites - the late, great Jerry Goldsmith (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000025/).

Other December movie viewing:
I'm probably going to watch Patton (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066206/) on 26 December, to celebrate the relief of Bastogne.

And, there's the all-time family favorite Christmas Eve movie, Die Hard (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095016/). My oldest daughter's favorite line: "Now I have a machine gun. Ho! Ho! Ho!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While Stationed in Germany, I invited all the single Lieutenants and anybody else who stayed put for Christmas over to my "Flat" One of the best Christmas's ever, we started with the "Muppet version of the Christmas Carol" and ended up watching "Animal House" with John Belushi...What a classic Christmas Movie! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yeah, the little organ piece Goldsmith did for the "Patton" soundtrack gets me all the time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

...And you have to love the balls George C. Scott had by not accepting the Oscar that year even though he won it! Almost as ballsy as Patton himself, although something tells me the real Patton would not turn down accepting an award.

We need a good biopic on:

- Gurderian
- Erich Hartmann
- Adolf Galland
- Guy Sajer's Character in "Forgotton Soldier" might make a good HBO series
- Wolfgang Luth (might be too much of a NAZI though)

paulhager
12-07-2005, 08:19 AM
My first choice would be Wernher von Braun. There was a Hollywood puff piece bio of von Braun starring Curd Jurgens way back when but nothing since.

To me, von Braun is as close to the embodiment of Faust as anyone in history. A true space enthusiast, he wanted humanity to expand off the Earth and go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. In this, von Braun was right - the human race either expands outward or dies right here. This noble goal was, however, perverted to serve the Nazis. Call von Braun a secular Faust.

A really good biopic would be historically accurate but play up the Faust parallels. Someone really ought to do the screenplay ...

Ratek
12-07-2005, 09:02 AM
Tora Tora Tora... It is sitting on its shelf glowing on this day. Ahhh...
The first time I watched it I was almost sitting and yelling for someone to do the right thing. EVERYTHING went wrong. So good.
But the best part is that the movie doesn't show either side as evil, unlike Pearl Harbor (you get the destinct feeling that the Japanese are evil people there).

Biopics eh?

Guderian would be interesting for history buffs, but not too great for the general public. Also it would be too much for too little time. So I don't think it will ever happen.

Erich Hartmann would cater much better to the public, but honestly there wouldn't be much more than seeing him go into the air, blast a few Russians, land, get cheers, rinse, repeat...

Adolf Galland on the other hand would combine his own heroics with the complicated political game and his work at the staff. It would also include flightime with the Me-262. Perfect subject for a movie.

Celeon999
12-07-2005, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also my regards to all who died and survived, Americans and Japanese alike. After all, most of these men who attacked Pearl Harbor on that morning were just following orders. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And at this point i must take our japanese allies in protection and must admit that the japanese ambassadors and politicians are to blame for the too late given war declaration.


The pilots that carried out the attack and the men aboard the japanese aircraft carriers fulfilled an not easy task with precision and military professionalism without equal.


That Pearl Harbor was fully suprised by the attack wasnt their fault.

They had no idea of that fact and awaited an enemy that at least had prepared basic defense and was ready for what would come.


So i give a deep http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif to all who defended Pearl Harbor with heroism and to all who died or survived that morning.

And i give a "Niitaka Yama Nobore!" to the japanese pilots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Admiral-Napalm
12-07-2005, 10:09 AM
Pearl Harbor, for me, is just another battle/event which happened in World War 2, albeit a very important one. It isn't the beginning of the war (like many Americans erroneously believe) but the beginning of the end of World War 2. It finally kicked some sense into the Americans enough to join the war. In that regard we have to thank the Japanese.

paulhager
12-07-2005, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Admiral-Napalm:
Pearl Harbor, for me, is just another battle/event which happened in World War 2, albeit a very important one. It isn't the beginning of the war (like many Americans erroneously believe) but the beginning of the end of World War 2. It finally kicked some sense into the Americans enough to join the war. In that regard we have to thank the Japanese. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quite agree. This all turns on the issue of when to go to war and whether preemption is ever justified. I addressed this issue in Preemptive war against Iran (http://paulhager.org/wordpress/index.php?p=8), which I posted on the anniversary of Hitler's reoccupation of the Rheinland.

Representative democracies labor under the handicap that a critical mass of the citizenry has to be willing to commit themselves to war. This makes democracies slow to react to emerging threats. It was militarily but politically infeasible for Britain and France to stop Germany in 1936. Tens of millions of people died as a result. Fortunately, what is a handicap of representative democracies in one context is a terrible strength in another: once mobilized, a democracy is the most powerful force on the planet. Yamamoto said it best when he talked about a "sleeping giant" being "awakened".

Kaleun1961
12-07-2005, 11:44 AM
I love it when a post segues into a movie discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The reason Tora, Tora, Tora was such a good film is the solid research on which it was based. The core material of that research is the life work of Gordon W. Prange, the author of "At Dawn We Slept." It is still the best reference work about Pearl Harbor.

Basing a movie on research and a good script is the formula for success. A crappy script cannot be rescued by big name stars and special effects. "Pearl Harbor" could still have been a good film, as far as fictional history goes, if it had a good plot line. Look at the film, "Enemy at the Gates." It had a good script, or plot, if you will and good actors. Add to that an excellent setting and then add some good computer graphics effects and you have a good film.

"Pearl Harbor" was a tedious film to watch, with its drawn out plot and sub-par acting. The film could not be rescued by the high quality of the attack action. You can take liberties with historical fiction, but it still must be credible. "Pearl Harbor" blew it on that score with me by showing the two lead stars as fighter pilots and then four months later they are now bomber pilots flying B-25's off the Hornet to attack Japan, after which they are transformed into Rambos on the ground. What a stinker this film was, made worse by the blown potential to have been a great movie. I bet if Wolfgang Petersen had made this movie, it would have been better.

I would like to see movies about some of the personalities of WW2. Cuba Gooding would be a good lead for the life story of Dorrie Miller, the black sailor made famous for his manning of the AA gun at Pearl Harbor.

I disagree that Erich Hartmann's story would not make for a good film. There is enough material there for a good film. A clever writer could depict a kid growing up in the shadow of Naziism, with a passion to fly. Hartmann's mother ran a glider school, through which Hitler Youth kids got their first taste of the sky. There is the story of his close bond with his lead crewman, Bimmel Merten, who agonised when Hartmann failed to return from a sortie. He went out on his own to try to find his officer. There is another story of Hartmann's brief capture by Russian infantry and his escape, making it back to his own lines, wondering if he might be shot by his own side or the other when he got near the front line. A director could show his rise through the ranks of the Luftwaffe's top aces, the tragedy of the long retreat from Russia, his capture, ten and a half years in Soviet captivity. Then there is the story of his undying love for his wife, and her long wait for her husband to return. Then there is the tranformation from WW2 fighter pilot to the jet age. There's plenty of material to make a film about Hartmann's life, although it is unlikely to appeal to the masses of America. Perhaps a German company could bring this story to film. By the way, is Erich Hartmann still alive?

Admiral-Napalm
12-07-2005, 11:47 AM
Paul, I read your blog on a possible war in Iran. On paper, you're completely right, the US would easily win a war with Iran. Unfortunately it's never that simple.

The Russians limited themselves in regards to the war against Saddam. Dont expect the same in Iran. Iran have a lot more to spend regarding arms then Iraq, which was under an arms and oil embargo for over ten years, before Gulf War 2. Russia has already struck up a 1 billion dollar deal with Tehran, they would never except another customer being eliminated. You'll get a war more or less like Vietnam/Afghanistan where a militarily weak nation is being funded by a high-tec military nation. Worse still, Iran has money to burn, literally.

Secondly, Iran is an Islamic State. You will get global Jihad by attacking Iran. Make no mistake about it. You'll lose Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as an ally, not that Saudi Arabia is very hot on the US at the moment mind you (due to internal strife).

Thirdly, the UN doesn't like the US very much and you can bet anything you want France will once again veto any action against a government which they helped put there in the first place. So a coalition seems out of the question.

Fourthly Iran is what, three, four times larger then Iraq? Supply and logistics will be a nightmare.

Fifthly, you'll have every islamic terrosist group from Chechnya to the Gaza Strip fighting against US forces considering Iran funds them all.

Sixthly, I'm no military strategist, but if I was the commander of the Iranian forces, I would let the US walk into Iran without resistance, then fight a guerilla war.

To conclude, a war with Iran will be very costly and the outcome by no means certain.

Kaleun1961
12-07-2005, 12:02 PM
I feel sorry for the Americans, I really do. If they do nothing, Iran will one day have atomic weapons. Then, it will be too late. At that time it will be thought, just like when it was too late to stop Hitler without war, "If only we had acted when we had the chance."

If the U.S. does pre-empt Iran, they will made an international pariah, labelled a rogue state, imperialists and so forth. The gutless Europeans, who would also benefit from Iran being disarmed, will, perhaps as said, led by France, pillory the U.S. at the U.N. If you are European you may be offended by my use of the word, "gutless." I use that word because it fits in the context of the genocide which was allowed to take place in the former Yugoslavia, while much more powerful states did nothing.

The West lives in denial that we are already at war with Islam. We are a target for their hatred and envy, if you will. Most Muslims, I would like to think, really just want to be left alone, but they are merely sheep, who are shoved around and told what to think by these Imams and Mullahs.

America's burden is closely tied with Israel. If the U.S. stands with Israel, it is made a target by the Islamic world. If the U.S. abandons Israel, it will be seen as a coward.

Messervy
12-07-2005, 12:20 PM
My only question is how did they managed to get themselves into this situation at first place?

Kaleun1961
12-07-2005, 12:35 PM
I see the anger of the Arab nations towards the U.S. as being rooted in American support of Israel. This puts the U.S. in a dilemma, to continue to support Israel and alienate the Arab nations, or abandon Israel and watch it get slaughtered. I can't imagine that if the U.S. stopped supporting the state of Israel, that Israel's neighbours would allow its continued existance.

Admiral-Napalm
12-07-2005, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
I feel sorry for the Americans, I really do. If they do nothing, Iran will one day have atomic weapons. Then, it will be too late. At that time it will be thought, just like when it was too late to stop Hitler without war, "If only we had acted when we had the chance."

If the U.S. does pre-empt Iran, they will made an international pariah, labelled a rogue state, imperialists and so forth. The gutless Europeans, who would also benefit from Iran being disarmed, will, perhaps as said, led by France, pillory the U.S. at the U.N. If you are European you may be offended by my use of the word, "gutless." I use that word because it fits in the context of the genocide which was allowed to take place in the former Yugoslavia, while much more powerful states did nothing.

The West lives in denial that we are already at war with Islam. We are a target for their hatred and envy, if you will. Most Muslims, I would like to think, really just want to be left alone, but they are merely sheep, who are shoved around and told what to think by these Imams and Mullahs.

America's burden is closely tied with Israel. If the U.S. stands with Israel, it is made a target by the Islamic world. If the U.S. abandons Israel, it will be seen as a coward. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no nuclear threat to America from Iran and probably never will be. Israel is a possibility, Europe will be in range of Iran before America ever is.
Iran will never likely use nuclear weapons even if they had them. Israel has nuclear warheads pointed at Mecca and Medina. Iran do not want to be responsible for destroying Islam. More than likely Iran do not want to end up an easy prey like Iraq, hence why they want them. Nuclear bombs are political weapons. Not for nothing, in the old Soviet Union the missiles carrying the nuclear warheads were under control of the army, but the actual nuclear devices on the missiles was under control of the politicians.

It's a war of attarition. Once you kill all the extremists, you have no more extremism. I suppose that is what we are doing regarding the war on terrorism.

And Europeans are not gutless. Many Europeans are still over there fighting.

The_Silent_O
12-07-2005, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:

...

I disagree that Erich Hartmann's story would not make for a good film. There is enough material there for a good film. A clever writer could depict a kid growing up in the shadow of Naziism, with a passion to fly. Hartmann's mother ran a glider school, through which Hitler Youth kids got their first taste of the sky. There is the story of his close bond with his lead crewman, Bimmel Merten, who agonised when Hartmann failed to return from a sortie. He went out on his own to try to find his officer. There is another story of Hartmann's brief capture by Russian infantry and his escape, making it back to his own lines, wondering if he might be shot by his own side or the other when he got near the front line. A director could show his rise through the ranks of the Luftwaffe's top aces, the tragedy of the long retreat from Russia, his capture, ten and a half years in Soviet captivity. Then there is the story of his undying love for his wife, and her long wait for her husband to return. Then there is the tranformation from WW2 fighter pilot to the jet age. There's plenty of material to make a film about Hartmann's life, although it is unlikely to appeal to the masses of America. Perhaps a German company could bring this story to film. By the way, is Erich Hartmann still alive? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erich Hartmann passed away in 1993, I desperately wanted to meet him while I was stationed in Germany (And find Richhoften's Grave, I was unsuccessful at both http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif )...You must have read The Blond Knight of Germany like I did. There's a coincidence here too, when I was jumping into your Gagetown, New Brunswick, I had that book in my right cargo pocket. I was reading it on the flight up there.

Yep Hartmann's life could be cool on the screen, I can only imagine the air battles...

Need to find a young blond skinny actor in his twenties to play Hartmann...BUT NOT DiCAPRIO!

And a wholesome young black haired German girl to play Ursula!

Kaleun1961
12-07-2005, 12:52 PM
Good post, Napalm. I'll take back that gutless insult. I should have been more refined when I used that term. It was not personal courage which was lacking, it was political will that was lacking. I call my own country gutless, but I'm really referring to our political leaders, who tiptoe around lest they upset some disenfranchised minority or special interest. What disturbed me about the situation in the Balkans was how it was going on and nobody seemed able to stoop it. I get very angry when I see innocents being slaughtered and I know that someone, somewhere has the ability to stop it and it doesn't get stopped.

One of our Canadian officers was in Rwanda and knew a massacre was going to occur soon. He pleaded that military forces be sent in before it started. He was ignored and a massacre occurred. Since then, that officer has had mental problems from being forced to sit back and watch people get slaughtered.

Kaleun1961
12-07-2005, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Silent_O:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:

...

I disagree that Erich Hartmann's story would not make for a good film. There is enough material there for a good film. A clever writer could depict a kid growing up in the shadow of Naziism, with a passion to fly. Hartmann's mother ran a glider school, through which Hitler Youth kids got their first taste of the sky. There is the story of his close bond with his lead crewman, Bimmel Merten, who agonised when Hartmann failed to return from a sortie. He went out on his own to try to find his officer. There is another story of Hartmann's brief capture by Russian infantry and his escape, making it back to his own lines, wondering if he might be shot by his own side or the other when he got near the front line. A director could show his rise through the ranks of the Luftwaffe's top aces, the tragedy of the long retreat from Russia, his capture, ten and a half years in Soviet captivity. Then there is the story of his undying love for his wife, and her long wait for her husband to return. Then there is the tranformation from WW2 fighter pilot to the jet age. There's plenty of material to make a film about Hartmann's life, although it is unlikely to appeal to the masses of America. Perhaps a German company could bring this story to film. By the way, is Erich Hartmann still alive? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erich Hartmann passed away in 1993, I desperately wanted to meet him while I was stationed in Germany (And find Richhoften's Grave, I was unsuccessful at both http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif )...You must have read The Blond Knight of Germany like I did. There's a coincidence here too, when I was jumping into your Gagetown, New Brunswick, I had that book in my right cargo pocket. I was reading it on the flight up there.

Yep Hartmann's life could be cool on the screen, I can only imagine the air battles...

Need to find a young blond skinny actor in his twenties to play Hartmann...BUT NOT DiCAPRIO!

And a wholesome young black haired German girl to play Ursula! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, please not DiCaprio, although, he does have a similar physical build to Hartmann's. And yes, I did have the book, "Blonde Knight of Germany" in mind when I wrote my post.

Kaleun1961
12-07-2005, 12:59 PM
Although it may seem as if the Americans are losing in Iraq, I think they are making progress toward restoring Iraq and setting it on the road to self determination. Today's generation do not seem to have patience, expecting everything to be wrapped up nice and tidy to fit into a one hour TV show. Heck, WW2 took almost six years to resolve. As tragic as it is to lose soldiers in Iraq every day, more Americans are killed back at home in their own streets than on the mean streets of Baghdad.

Ratek
12-07-2005, 03:19 PM
What is the matter with DiCaprio?! I mean it... The man can act, and he can act very well. Watch his movies again and notice that he is not the problem, it is his surroundings. He is being typecasted, and you my friends are stereotyping him for his roles in chickflicks.
The Beach for instance is a lousy BS movie, at least I think so, but DiCaprio's performance is spotless.

Do not judge a man on the movies, judge him on his performance, and in this case it has been absolutely great. If we did the same with our beloved Kaleun, J├╝rgen Prochnow, then we should all call him a fith-rate actor who can barely hold together his acting in B-movies. We all know that is untrue because of his stunning performance in Das Boot, but imagine we had not watched it... What could we then look at? Dune? Sure he does well but the movie is anything but good, and that reflects back on him (which is unfair). There is also an endless stream of B-movies in which he is performing so-so (I find that perfectly understandable since you don't get as much into caracter and all that).

But DiCaprio is simply built wrong. He looks to fragile yet too bulky. A better actor would be Matt Damon for instance.

Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that Erich Hartmann was particularly bad as a subject, just that there are much better ones out there. What about Hans Ulrich Rudel? Now there we have a special case, something that could even get people complaining that the movie couldn't possibly be correct, despite the fact that it would need to be to be downright crazy.

A movie about Erich Hartmann I would prefer to get expanded into a movie of the Karaya Eins of JG52 (top scoring air unit of the war, including the only three pilots with kills above 300). They were sort of a brotherhood of superaces within the most impressive Jagdgeschwader ever. The stuff of legends.

Kaleun1961
12-07-2005, 03:38 PM
I have to admit, I've been biased against DiCaprio because of all those girly flicks. Erich Hartmann was not a big guy, he was very much on the lean side, so DiCaprio from a physical resemblance would be a good choice. Hartmann said that his small stature was an advantage to him; being smaller he thought he suffered less from g-forces than taller men. Another possibility to portray Hartmann would be Jude Law, again, because of his build and his piercing eyes, which earned him the role of Zaitsev, in "Enemy at the Gates." Matt Damon is a good actor, but I think he's too well built to portray Hartmann.

Rudel's life would be a good subject, but I can't see it being a German made film. Rudel was too much a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi for that film to be made in Germany.

One minor correction. There are only two pilots with 300 or more kills: Hartmann, 352; Barkhorn, 301. Gunther Rall was close with 275.

The distinction of top ace could have gone to anyone, had circumstances been different. Rall had his thumb shot off, which took him out of the war for a while, as did his conversion to jet fighters. Galland was a contender, but he was put into command positions which meant less time for hunting. Werner Molders could have done it, but he was killed while a passenger in a Heinkel 111, while traveling to the funeral of, I think it was Erhard Milch, who had killed himself in shame for what he thought was his failure of duty to the Luftwaffe. Another possibility was Marseilles, who was killed while bailing out of his ME-109, not from combat but from a smoking engine, when he struck the tail of his fighter. I'm sure we can expand this list.

Ratek
12-07-2005, 04:50 PM
My dear you are right... I mixed up the 300+ scorers with the top three aces, which are those three, Hartmann, Barkhorn and Rall.

Perhaps others could have topped Hartmann, but his very short tenure compared to the others would still have made him the most effective extreme topace. And to be honest, in war half the reason you get far is pure luck. And if you look at the records of the best of all bracnhes you will see that they were indeed lucky in the extreme.
Rudel was almost devinely lucky given that he was shot down some 30 times and had his planes scrapped at least as many times. He could obviously afford to take extreme risks, until of course he tried to pick up a downed crew and had to trek back to the German lines. Lost his reargunner and best friend there... Never became the same man again and his rate of kills fell sharply.

I would say that Rudel would make for a perfect subject. Sure he was a Nazi through and through, but that neededn't be a major part of the movie, as he was first and foremost a soldier. Remember that he defied orders in the end to stay with his groundcrew... He put his buddies and fellow pilots above any political ideology.

And one shouldn't forget that he actually bagged 11 airkills in a Fw190 before flying Stukas... That is pretty awesome. An ace in the air and a superace against the ground, and of course a superace against seapower (BB, CAs and a DD along with 70 landingboats and numerous other ships and boats).

Coolhand2005
12-07-2005, 05:53 PM
&lt;S&gt;

Kaleun1961
12-07-2005, 08:29 PM
Don't be shy, step us and tell us what it was you wanted to say.

TheRealWulfmann
12-07-2005, 08:59 PM
This may seem a bit off topic now but my father was at Pearl Harbor on Decemeber 7 1941.
He was on the USS Sacramento a former colonial cruiser reclassed as a gunboat. It was the second ship in from the point across from Battleship row. While he was about as close as one could be to the very center of the fight and witnessed everything that happened to the BBs.
He was actaiully safe relative to the danger others were in as his ship was below a low priority.
I did not see Pearl Harbor. With today's computers to have Aegis class cruisers at Pearl Harbor was more than I would sit through, lie having F-16s in the Blue Max, IMO!.

The Islamic extremist use Israel as an excuse to insite ignorant people to Jihad.
They are simply those seeking power and as many of different races before; using God as an excuse..
Iran with nuclear weapons would be untolerable to Israel and having a backbone, unlike most nations, will act in self defense for what anyone but an idiot knows why Iran wants Nukes.
I have nothing against Arabs or Islam. But, if this can not be resolved I am not against us being the survivors of a winner take all with no enemy alive.
Pure survival with no desire to see it happen.
Wulfmann

paulhager
12-08-2005, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Admiral-Napalm:
Paul, I read your blog on a possible war in Iran. On paper, you're completely right, the US would easily win a war with Iran. Unfortunately it's never that simple.

The Russians limited themselves in regards to the war against Saddam. Dont expect the same in Iran. Iran have a lot more to spend regarding arms then Iraq, which was under an arms and oil embargo for over ten years, before Gulf War 2. Russia has already struck up a 1 billion dollar deal with Tehran, they would never except another customer being eliminated. You'll get a war more or less like Vietnam/Afghanistan where a militarily weak nation is being funded by a high-tec military nation. Worse still, Iran has money to burn, literally.

Secondly, Iran is an Islamic State. You will get global Jihad by attacking Iran. Make no mistake about it. You'll lose Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as an ally, not that Saudi Arabia is very hot on the US at the moment mind you (due to internal strife).

Thirdly, the UN doesn't like the US very much and you can bet anything you want France will once again veto any action against a government which they helped put there in the first place. So a coalition seems out of the question.

Fourthly Iran is what, three, four times larger then Iraq? Supply and logistics will be a nightmare.

Fifthly, you'll have every islamic terrosist group from Chechnya to the Gaza Strip fighting against US forces considering Iran funds them all.

Sixthly, I'm no military strategist, but if I was the commander of the Iranian forces, I would let the US walk into Iran without resistance, then fight a guerilla war.

To conclude, a war with Iran will be very costly and the outcome by no means certain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That post was only one of several on the same theme. Others offer some game theoretical analyses as well as a "tale of the tape" military breakdown. One offers what I consider to be the only viable counter argument against preemption.

However, the central thesis is that preemptive war may well be the "least bad alternative", a phrase I've used a lot with respect to the War against Islamofascism. It's important to emphasize that the consequences for the Iranian people of delaying could well be horrific if the Mullahs are really as crazy as they appear to be. Remember my point about stopping Hitler in 1936. Something like 12 million Germans died in WW II because no one took action when Hitler was easy to stop. The same logic applies to Iran and the Iranian leaders.

If we take the Iranian military and political leaders at their word - and why, oh why didn't the Europeans take Hitler at his? - then they will pursue nuclear Jihad. The consequences for Iran will be catastrophic. Imagine an attack on Israel - something they keep threatening. Israel will reduce Iran to radioactive glass. That's the essential point I make in that piece - the consequences of taking no action will be terrible for the Iranians. I'm surprised you missed it.

As I say, the other articles further expand on preemptive war. If you do a search on the word "Iran" on the blog, they'll pop up. You might want to read the whole series and post your comments on the blog - I'll be happy to respond there.

One comment I'll offer here is that "global jihad" didn't happen after going into Iraq - it won't happen if the Mullahs are deposed either. This is not the place to go into the differences between the Shi'a and Sunni branches of Islam, neither of which is itself monolithic, except to say that there are quite a few Sunni states that will be perfectly happy to see Iranian power broken.

Celeon999
12-09-2005, 04:51 AM
Talking about "Tora, Tora, Tora" brings me everytime to the movie "the thin red line" which i consider to be under the 5 best anti-war movies ever.


It was the first neutral anti-patriotic war movie since a long time coming from the u.s. .

It has an awesome camera leading and excellent storybook with many poetry in it.


I just watched it recently again. Excellent movie , excellent actors, excellent dialogues and very much fundamental truth in it.

Simply great http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

zaza-mushi
12-09-2005, 05:03 AM
The sadness thing is most nows young Japaese doesnt know what day today is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.
They doenst know What happen to 64years ago.
If you come to Japan,ask to young people "what day today is?" May be they answer "I dont know!"
Also May be they doesnt know where pearl habor is.

It is very shame as the Japanese. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

RIP whose killed in acthion.

Celeon999
12-09-2005, 05:15 AM
Oh you can find this everywhere today.

Try to ask some young people in Europe who won ww-2.

You will get answers like "Holland ?" , "Germany" ,"France!"

Or ask them when the war ended.

"1965 ?"
"I think it was 1980."

The_Silent_O
12-09-2005, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Celeon999:
Oh you can find this everywhere today.

Try to ask some young people in Europe who won ww-2.

You will get answers like "Holland ?" , "Germany" ,"France!"

Or ask them when the war ended.

"1965 ?"
"I think it was 1980." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CEL999 and Zaza Mushi

To paraphrase a famous quote...

"those who forget the past are commited to repeat it!"

Speaking of movies...I'm in the middle of a good WWI movie right now "A very long engagement" It is a French made movie with Audrey Tatou. It's a combination War/Romance/Mystery and so far it's really good.

The premise is that five french army soldiers are sentenced to death for self mutilation...but instead of the firing squad...the french commander throws them "over the top" into no-mans land without weapons. Nobody knows for sure who has died. Great Trench scenes and it can be slightly funny at times. I can't wait to finish it tonight.

I was surprised to see the America Actress Jodie Foster playing a French woman. I knew she spoke french, but wow she really pulled it off well, if only... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Link here: Un long dimanche de fian├žailles (http://imdb.com/title/tt0344510/)

Celeon999
12-09-2005, 07:04 AM
Ah i know that one. It was in the cinemas not long ago but i didnt saw it yet.


Look at this one pic from the movie on IMDB.

One thing i ask myself for so long now. Why did the french colored their uniforms in that way ?

Look how greatly their soldiers differed from their surroundings. They were so easy to spot.

Celeon999
12-09-2005, 08:53 AM
Ah yeah by the way :

Anyone knows some good books about the war in the pacific ?

Kaleun1961
12-09-2005, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zaza-mushi:
The sadness thing is most nows young Japaese doesnt know what day today is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.
They doenst know What happen to 64years ago.
If you come to Japan,ask to young people "what day today is?" May be they answer "I dont know!"
Also May be they doesnt know where pearl habor is.

It is very shame as the Japanese. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

RIP whose killed in acthion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Japan got off lightly for what she did compared to Germany. Germany has paid, for example, reparations to the State of Israel, suffered the partition of the country for a generation and is still very much guilt-ridden over her role in WW2, to the point, as mentioned elsewhere in this forum, she neglects the graves of some of her war dead [Waffen SS.] By comparison, Japan's reparations are nowhere near what Germany paid, nor has she been forthcoming with meaningful compensation to those she abused.

Kaleun1961
12-09-2005, 09:14 AM
As for Japan's strike at Pearl Harbor, it was seen as a shameful act and infuriated the American people. I'm not saying Japan was justified to attack the U.S., but that the idea of a pre-emptive strike to neutralize the Pacific Fleet made sense from a military viewpoint. Japan was intent on capturing the resources she needed. The Pacific Fleet, based at Pearl Harbor, was a threat to Japan's strategic flank.

At the time it was viewed as a great success. The Pacific Fleet was forced onto the defensive, unable to interfere with Japan's initial attack. It was a blessing in disguise from one perspective: it forced the U.S. to rely on her carriers and naval aviation, which was to supplant the battleship. Even as late as 1941, proponents of the big gunship were still very much an influence.

Had the American carriers been at Pearl Harbor the morning of Japan's attack, they most likely would have been destroyed or very seriously damaged. Japan's feat of sailing Kido Butai all that distance, undetected, and launching the air strike which caught the Americans unprepared was a masterful military operation, even though it failed to destroy the carriers. It really was a fluke that the carriers were not at Pearl Harbor that morning. Japanese spies had determined the routine movements of the Pacific Fleet for many weeks prior to the attack. They had good reason to expect or hope for the American carriers to be there when they attacked. That they were not there was a quirk of fate. If Japan had managed to bag the carriers that morning, the attack at Pearl Harbor would have been seen as an even greater victory than it really was.

There is a popular belief that the Japanese intended to deliver a declaration of war prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor, and that the failure to deliver this declaration of war in time was some bad luck on Japan's part. There is no good reason to believe that Japan's failure to deliver the declaration of war in a timely manner was anything less than intentional. Japan's military planners were stringing along their own diplomats, who were making an honest effort to find an understanding with the U.S. which would have avoided war. Tojo and his henchmen made every effort to undermine the efforts of Japan's diplomacy, in order to string the Americans along until they could deliver their attack. If anybody doubts this, I recommend they read Gordon W. Prange's book, "At Dawn We Slept." He documents how Japan's military leaders deceived their own diplomats, using them as a screen to cover their plans for war.

The_Silent_O
12-09-2005, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Celeon999:
Ah yeah by the way :

Anyone knows some good books about the war in the pacific ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"At dawn we slept" is a pretty good book that takes you through the buildup.

John Toland's book is the "Bible" if you want a complete overview...

The Rising Sun : The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812968581/qid=1134145062/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0958733-4142556?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)

I don't know if it can be found in the German Language...


Costello's book looks good also...

The Pacific War (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688016200/ref=pd_sbs_b_2/102-0958733-4142556?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155)

Good luck!

The_Silent_O
12-09-2005, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:


I think Japan got off lightly for what she did compared to Germany. Germany has paid, for example, reparations to the State of Israel, suffered the partition of the country for a generation and is still very much guilt-ridden over her role in WW2, to the point, as mentioned elsewhere in this forum, she neglects the graves of some of her war dead [Waffen SS.] By comparison, Japan's reparations are nowhere near what Germany paid, nor has she been forthcoming with meaningful compensation to those she abused. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second this opinion...I think we can essentially blame one American for letting them off the hook like this...GEN Douglas MacArthur. He essentially ran Japan after the war and excused and pardoned many Japanese industrialist and former military. As much as he is loved by his Alma Mater, West Point, I've never liked him as a General or War leader. In fact if you read his complete biography, he comes across as a very strange man, a prima donna, self serving and a very political. Braver than him was President Truman, who put him in his place!

thank god he was replaced by Ridgeway in Korea! And if it sounds like I'm bashing MacArthur, I AM!

HeibgesU999
12-09-2005, 09:36 AM
If you like "Tora, Tora, Tora", check out the "Longest Day".

Bay's "Pearl Harbor" reminded me in a lot of ways of "In Harm's Way." My favorite part of "Pearl Harbor" was when Jaime King was straffed. If you remember the story arc of "In Harm's Way" is about redemption. To redeme himself from being a drunk and a rapist, Kirk Douglas goes on a suicide mission to get revenge against the Japanese. "Pearl Harbor" is starting to look better and better.

I thought "The Thin Red Line" was pretty tedious. How can there be that much walking on an island? How many establishing shots do we need of someone walking?

"Mister Roberts" and "The Caine Mutiny" are hands-down the best books and movies written/filmed about WWII.

"Saving Ryan's Privates" is ****. Speilberg should be ashamed of himself. After "Schindler's List", I was definitely looking for a "Naked and the Dead" view of WWII.

And speaking of "Naked and the Dead". Absolutely the most realistic book about war every written especially about WWII. My dad was an infantryman at Guadalcanal, the Phillipines, Munda, among other places, and he made me read that book when I was like 10 years old to get any silly notions out of my head.
The Number One enemy of the United States is Europe. We will fight a war with Europe over the oil in the middle east. Remember, WWI was over for about 5 minutes, when England started her warplanning against the USA. The English thought it would be a war over trade.

And due to the collapse of England and France after WWII, the US and particularly the US Military has done the dirtywork for Eurpean mulitnational companies, that their own governments could no longer afford to do.

So the blood of American soldiers has kept the Europeans rich, while at the same time the Europeans have made like they are innocent.

Kuwait it part of Iraq. That is historical fact. The English welched on their deal with the Arabs after WWI, and created Kuwait as a puppet government so give themselves strategic base in the region.

The enemy of the United States is Europe. It always has been and always will be. After throwing off the chains of colonialism, we conspired with our former masters to enslave the rest of the world rather than working against the Europeans to free it.

HeibgesU999
12-09-2005, 09:39 AM
Pearl Harbor Disaster = American Naval Officers playing golf on Sunday Morning.

Messervy
12-09-2005, 10:42 AM
Will you people ever run out of enemies? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

zaza-mushi
12-09-2005, 11:04 AM
I agree with Celeon999.

I cant recommend "Pearl Harbor" by Bay.
What is that!? If that movie taken in ww2
that would be good.

But that movie taken in 2001.
Do you remember admiral Yamamoto with his stuff
having meeting on outside before they going?
They say seacret meeting.But what is that????
Why there was surine on the pool? Why they have metting on oustside with a pool and naked sailor with loincloth???
It too holds us in derision. They didnt try to reserch.It is very easy in nows days.We have internet even 2001.

One intersting story,from Japanese newspapor.
Actor Mako as Admiral Yamamoto in that movie,
he saing after the movies clanc up
"It is terrible in Japanese launguage,
Japanese supervision has come from Japan,
but she is too young and she dosent know old
days launguage and about war, she cant useful."
And Maco say at last, "I didnt see this movie." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Oh also young Japanese saw this movie as a love movie like "Titanic".So they doesnt care moive story.

"tora tora tora" is very good!
I like opening seen on battle ship Nagato.
Becasue before WW2 my gland father was
abording battle ship Nagato.

If you can understand Japanese
I recommend the movie
"Minami no shima ni yuki ga furu".
This movie is about niuginia Japanese Army.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203688/

zaza-mushi
12-09-2005, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
I think Japan got off lightly for what she did compared to Germany. Germany has paid, for example, reparations to the State of Israel, suffered the partition of the country for a generation and is still very much guilt-ridden over her role in WW2, to the point, as mentioned elsewhere in this forum, she neglects the graves of some of her war dead [Waffen SS.] By comparison, Japan's reparations are nowhere near what Germany paid, nor has she been forthcoming with meaningful compensation to those she abused. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indead, Japanese govoerment doenst take action
like German did.
It is a target of the discussion also in Japan.
Hard to slove in Japan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

HeibgesU999
12-09-2005, 12:20 PM
I had never even heard of the 90 Million Chinese the Japanese murdered until I moved to the West Coast of the USA.

There are large protests in front of the Japanese Consulate quite often.

Kaleun1961
12-09-2005, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HeibgesU999:
Pearl Harbor Disaster = American Naval Officers playing golf on Sunday Morning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the Navy got the short end of the stick for the disaster at Pearl Harbor. The responsibility for protecting the Navy at anchor belonged to the Army. If any one man carries the can, it should be General Short. He was so obsessed about sabotage by the Japanese civilians that he overlooked his prime duty, protect the Fleet at all costs.

Jose.MaC
12-09-2005, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
There is a popular belief that the Japanese intended to deliver a declaration of war prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor, and that the failure to deliver this declaration of war in time was some bad luck on Japan's part. There is no good reason to believe that Japan's failure to deliver the declaration of war in a timely manner was anything less than intentional. Japan's military planners were stringing along their own diplomats, who were making an honest effort to find an understanding with the U.S. which would have avoided war. Tojo and his henchmen made every effort to undermine the efforts of Japan's diplomacy, in order to string the Americans along until they could deliver their attack. If anybody doubts this, I recommend they read Gordon W. Prange's book, "At Dawn We Slept." He documents how Japan's military leaders deceived their own diplomats, using them as a screen to cover their plans for war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In "The Land of the Rising Yen", George Mikes quotes a couple of articles of New York Times. First one, about the Russo-Japanese War. Second one, about Pearl Harbour. Every one was done at the beggining of the respective war. Both describes the same act -Japan atacking and then declaring war-, and while the first states that a "new and innovative modification has been set in the field of honour", the second one states that USA has suffered a back-stabing attack! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif So yes, if both articles are true, chances are about Japan trying to do first the attack and then declaring the war. The main change was the perception from USA -is quite different to be an spectator of a war than to have a role on a war.

But this time, USA was catch with the trousers down. Can happen to anyone but looks suspicious.