Letters From Iwo Jima on AMC tonight

[Terminus]

Certainly not five-star material, but good, solid craftsmanship. I haven't seen Flags (and don't want to), but Letters was good.

[anarchyintheuk]

Must be the topic. I want to go rent Throne of Blood or Seven Samurai now.

[Snowman999]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I think we're getting carried away with semantics here. ALL human thought is biased by the experiances of the thinker. Historical thought generally comes in two strains. One is to tell (as well as can be determined) what happened, The other is to try to use "what happened" to make a point about "why it happened" (or didn't happen, or should or shouldn't have happened). Neither is totally unbiased---but authors trying to "Prove" something are generally more "selective" than those trying to "record" events, and more likely to be "biased" in the sense we are refering to.

[/quote]

If I'm arguing semantics, you are as well.[:)]

I disagree with your idea of "two strains." Reporting events isn't history; it's journalism, or, perhpas, simple stenography. History by its nature is interpretive. It asks "why" not only "what" or "whom." Some may tend to more fact and less analysis/sythesis and others less, but all historians tell a story. They aren't reporters. Herodotus included a lot of facts, but his "story" was "Greeks good; Persians bad."

By selecting the "what"--and, as I said, no historian can include it all--every historian is biased to his point. Maybe he isn't when he begins. Maybe he starts with a truly blank sheet of paper (yeah, right!), but the final story is shaped by facts left in and facts left out.

Soem folks here are (crudely in my telling) saying "US in WWII good; Japanese in WWII bad." They pull out, perhaps, Pearl Harbor, want to exclude the Bombs, and ask why Nanking isn't tossed in. OK, that's an argument. I could ask, why Nanking? It wasn't, technically, part of WWII. Most historians mark that date as 9/1/1939. (But some don't; are they biased?)

So include Nanking in the "Japanese bad" fact pile. If WWII can expand, can I include the assault on the Bonus Marchers in a "US bad" pile? How about lynching? A put-up war against Spain? How far back can I go to "prove" US bad before I'm too biased? The anser, maybe, is as far as other historians will let me before they construct arguments of their own. There's no "truth" to history. Only many stories.

[anarchyintheuk]

If an event is directly related it's relevant. Directly is an admittedly subjective term, but for the comparison Nanking could be argued to be directly related to the US-Japan part of WW2 because the PH attack was part of an effort to 1) remove any threat from Japanese forces in obtaining resources in the SRA which were needed due to the US embargo of same, 2) establishment of the GEACPS and 3) solve the China problem, whereas including the war against Spain is more in six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon level.

[Snowman999]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

If an event is directly related it's relevant. Directly is an admittedly subjective term, but for the comparison Nanking could be argued to be directly related to the US-Japan part of WW2 because the PH attack was part of an effort to 1) remove any threat from Japanese forces in obtaining resources in the SRA which were needed due to the US embargo of same, 2) establishment of the GEACPS and 3) solve the China problem, whereas including the war against Spain is more in six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon level.

I don't grant your last point. Do you agree that the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War led directly to Japan's efforts in the 1920s and 1930s that led to Nanking, Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima? Many historians more qualified than me do just that. And that war was only seven years after our own imperialistic love-fest with Spain, driven (IMO) by abberant Christianity feeding White Man's Burden, extra-continental Manifest Destiny, and, oh, yeah, a need for coaling stations.

Nations aren't "good" or "bad." They're bundles of self-interests colliding with each other.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

Do you agree that the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War led directly to Japan's efforts in the 1920s and 1930s that led to Nanking, Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima? Many historians more qualified than me do just that. And that war was only seven years after our own imperialistic love-fest with Spain, driven (IMO) by abberant Christianity feeding White Man's Burden, extra-continental Manifest Destiny, and, oh, yeah, a need for coaling stations.

Nations aren't "good" or "bad." They're bundles of self-interests colliding with each other.

To answer your question . . . no. However, if I did agree with them I would start that timeline with the Sino-Japanese War. In any event, I thought we were talking the Spanish-American War's relationship to good guy/bad guy status in WW2, which I still characterize as before. I would disagree with your characterization of the Spanish-American War as well.

As to historians and their qualifications, I am not one and don't have the other.

As to your last quote I'd generally agree; however, the actions of nations w/i certain time periods and in context of their relationship with each other can be defined as good or bad.

Edited to add stuff.

[Snowman999]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

Do you agree that the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War led directly to Japan's efforts in the 1920s and 1930s that led to Nanking, Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima? Many historians more qualified than me do just that. And that war was only seven years after our own imperialistic love-fest with Spain, driven (IMO) by abberant Christianity feeding White Man's Burden, extra-continental Manifest Destiny, and, oh, yeah, a need for coaling stations.

Nations aren't "good" or "bad." They're bundles of self-interests colliding with each other.

To answer your question . . . no. However, if I did agree with them I would start that timeline with the Sino-Japanese War. In any event, I thought we were talking the Spanish-American War's relationship to good guy/bad guy status in WW2, which I still characterize as before. I would disagree with your characterization of the Spanish-American War as well.

As to historians and their qualifications, I am not one and don't have the other.

As to your last quote I'd generally agree; however, the actions of nations w/i certain time periods and in context of their relationship with each other can be defined as good or bad.

Edited to add stuff.

The Sino-Japanese War didn't spring forth from nothing. It was part of a continuum. I'd say mid-19thC when Japan opened to the West after 400 years is a better starting point than the 1930s for the inception of Japan's imperial program.

As to the S-A War, it led to American interests in the Pacific where they had not existed before. The Russo-Japanese War showed Japan for the first time that they could compete and win with the West and taking the right side in WWI got them Pacific possessions of their own. We were going to tussle, and FDR knew it. He just didn't know how and when.

I characterized the S-A War as "bad" because it was a war of choice for the USA, much like the Mexican War. We clothe our imperialism, either military, economic, or cultural, in a lot of bushwa about spreading democracy and God's will, but we're no different at base than Japan was. Just trying to make our way in the world. We have our own continuum.

As to your last line, well, the victors write the history. I doubt Nat Turner, Sitting Bull, or the citizens of Dresden or Tokyo would think we we were all that good.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Snowman999
....As to your last line, well, the victors write the history. I doubt Nat Turner, Sitting Bull, or the citizens of Dresden or Tokyo would think we we were all that good.

I am sure Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo were upset with the U.S. too. They are probably all together griping about how mean and unfair the U.S. was to them, and having a chat with this fellow --> . My heart breaks just thinking about it. [8|]

Regards,
Feltan

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

Do you agree that the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War led directly to Japan's efforts in the 1920s and 1930s that led to Nanking, Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima? Many historians more qualified than me do just that. And that war was only seven years after our own imperialistic love-fest with Spain, driven (IMO) by abberant Christianity feeding White Man's Burden, extra-continental Manifest Destiny, and, oh, yeah, a need for coaling stations.

Nations aren't "good" or "bad." They're bundles of self-interests colliding with each other.

To answer your question . . . no. However, if I did agree with them I would start that timeline with the Sino-Japanese War. In any event, I thought we were talking the Spanish-American War's relationship to good guy/bad guy status in WW2, which I still characterize as before. I would disagree with your characterization of the Spanish-American War as well.

As to historians and their qualifications, I am not one and don't have the other.

As to your last quote I'd generally agree; however, the actions of nations w/i certain time periods and in context of their relationship with each other can be defined as good or bad.

Edited to add stuff.

The Sino-Japanese War didn't spring forth from nothing. It was part of a continuum. I'd say mid-19thC when Japan opened to the West after 400 years is a better starting point than the 1930s for the inception of Japan's imperial program.

As to the S-A War, it led to American interests in the Pacific where they had not existed before. The Russo-Japanese War showed Japan for the first time that they could compete and win with the West and taking the right side in WWI got them Pacific possessions of their own. We were going to tussle, and FDR knew it. He just didn't know how and when.

I characterized the S-A War as "bad" because it was a war of choice for the USA, much like the Mexican War. We clothe our imperialism, either military, economic, or cultural, in a lot of bushwa about spreading democracy and God's will, but we're no different at base than Japan was. Just trying to make our way in the world. We have our own continuum.

As to your last line, well, the victors write the history. I doubt Nat Turner, Sitting Bull, or the citizens of Dresden or Tokyo would think we we were all that good.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was speaking of the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese war. A blue-print for taking advantage of a situation and obtaining territory with little international repercussions . . . very similar to the S-A war. I disagreed with your characterization of it because of all of these other elements that you brought into it. 'Feeding on a carcass' is more apt. You do seem to agree that there are good wars and bad wars, does this now mean there are good sides and bad?

Losers and disaffected victors write history as well. It just depends on whether you read it and which you believe. Each can have an agenda.

[Snowman999]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: Snowman999
....As to your last line, well, the victors write the history. I doubt Nat Turner, Sitting Bull, or the citizens of Dresden or Tokyo would think we we were all that good.

I am sure Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo were upset with the U.S. too. They are probably all together griping about how mean and unfair the U.S. was to them, and having a chat with this fellow --> . My heart breaks just thinking about it. [8|]

Regards,
Feltan

I take your meaning and somewhat agree, although I don't believe in a Satan (by whatever name.)

My overall point was merely a cautionary tale about nations getting so full of their own hubris and "goodness" that they forget their real self-interested reasons for sometimes acting as right bastids. I love my country, volunteered to die for her on command, but I was also once a History major. I wish our national leaders had read as much Roman history as I did. THERE was a culture with hubris. We could learn from their mistakes. (Oh, and Japan's too . . .)

[Snowman999]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was speaking of the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese war. A blue-print for taking advantage of a situation and obtaining territory with little international repercussions . . . very similar to the S-A war. I disagreed with your characterization of it because of all of these other elements that you brought into it. 'Feeding on a carcass' is more apt. You do seem to agree that there are good wars and bad wars, does this now mean there are good sides and bad?

Losers and disaffected victors write history as well. It just depends on whether you read it and which you believe. Each can have an agenda.

Ah. I confess I'm not up on that war. So many, so little time . . .

I suspect, given the time period of both your S-J War and the S-A War, that technology in the form of poor comms and slow transport made them both more likely than either would have been by 1920. The world had a lot more dark corners in the 19th C. than even a few decades after.

On "good" wars I know that's been a theological debate since . . . huh. St. Francis? Not up on my saints either. Good is relative. As an American and a lover of representative democracy and civil rights I think WWII absolutely had to be fought, but I can also understand that the Japanese and German populations, not just their leaders, could see us as mean, nasty party-crashers on their inherent "right" to spread their brand of cultural goodness.

On the last, maybe it wold be better to generalize to "history is written by the survivors." Lots of dead Japanese and German leaders who might have written historical tomes disagreeing with Toland et al, but didn't get the chance. What I believe, I suppose, is what's supported with better primary sources and decent connect-the-dots. As I've gotten older I've dropped a lot of the filters I had as a young man re American "goodness." The world gets more complex and interesting as you age, if you let it. I think it's a sign of a mature culture to self-examine and self-criticize, but as I'm on the verge of a current-politics rant that would be against forum rules I'll stop here.[:)]

[AcePylut]

Even Letters can't get away from making the main character "unrealistic".

Really, what some 200ish out of 20k soldiers were taken prisoner, but we get a main character that is one of the 200 and not one of the other 19800 soldiers - and the ones that commit suicide are the flag waving patriots?

It presents an inaccurate portrayal of the soldier. Good movie in general, but yet another typical hollywood US War Movie.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

I take your meaning and somewhat agree, although I don't believe in a Satan (by whatever name.)

My overall point was merely a cautionary tale about nations getting so full of their own hubris and "goodness" that they forget their real self-interested reasons for sometimes acting as right bastids. I love my country, volunteered to die for her on command, but I was also once a History major. I wish our national leaders had read as much Roman history as I did. THERE was a culture with hubris. We could learn from their mistakes. (Oh, and Japan's too . . .)

I somewhat agree with your opinion too, to a point.

Every nation has miscreants in their population, and every nation has had dark chapters. I think that is a given.

However, I also think it is intellectually lazy to say everything is relative. It isn't. When one country's policy is to mistreat POW's and slaughter civilians and offend the norms of civilized behavior measured by the peer nations at the time -- I have no problem calling them evil.

Regards,
Feltan

[Snowman999]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

I somewhat agree with your opinion too, to a point.

Every nation has miscreants in their population, and every nation has had dark chapters. I think that is a given.

However, I also think it is intellectually lazy to say everything is relative. It isn't. When one country's policy is to mistreat POW's and slaughter civilians and offend the norms of civilized behavior measured by the peer nations at the time -- I have no problem calling them evil.

Regards,
Feltan

I have a problem with the word "evil", but that's just me. I don't believe in B/W choices and that word lends itself to those. I usually talk about ethics rather than morals, and ethics are a spectrum.

That said, were the Allies more ethical? Probably, but marginally. We didn't do death marches, but our side definately mistreated POWs. Much eyewitness and oral testimony from the Pacific War that prisoners were shot or not allowed to surrender. Did we do "Nankings"? No, but we did Tokyos, and Dresdens and Colognes and Hiroshimas. Wholesale civilain deaths rather than one-ers after a gang rape, but just as dead. For that matter the US and UK allied with Uncle Joe, and the Red Army DID do Nankings, especially to Berlin. War changed in WWII from WWI norms, and civilians were fair game for area bombing and fire bombing; the Japanese and Germans may have started it, but we finished it.

I spent a good portion of my twenties training every day to kill between 30 and 50 million civilians in an afternoon, and it wasn't much commented on as "bad." Just strategy. We were always told we'd only slaughter after the other guy started it, but we were sure going to slaughter. And the other guys in their boomers were told the exact same thing about us.

It's all relative.

[Terminus]

Er, comparing the Rape of Nanking to the Battle of Berlin is not valid.

[Snowman999]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Er, comparing the Rape of Nanking to the Battle of Berlin is not valid.

No, but comparing it to the follow-on Rape of Berlin is.

[Feinder]

I don't remember the kid surviving.  I thought he ended up getting shot defending the body of the General...?
 
I dunno.  It's been a while since I've seen it.
 
-f-

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was speaking of the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese war. A blue-print for taking advantage of a situation and obtaining territory with little international repercussions . . . very similar to the S-A war. I disagreed with your characterization of it because of all of these other elements that you brought into it. 'Feeding on a carcass' is more apt. You do seem to agree that there are good wars and bad wars, does this now mean there are good sides and bad?

Losers and disaffected victors write history as well. It just depends on whether you read it and which you believe. Each can have an agenda.

Ah. I confess I'm not up on that war. So many, so little time . . .

I suspect, given the time period of both your S-J War and the S-A War, that technology in the form of poor comms and slow transport made them both more likely than either would have been by 1920. The world had a lot more dark corners in the 19th C. than even a few decades after.

On "good" wars I know that's been a theological debate since . . . huh. St. Francis? Not up on my saints either. Good is relative. As an American and a lover of representative democracy and civil rights I think WWII absolutely had to be fought, but I can also understand that the Japanese and German populations, not just their leaders, could see us as mean, nasty party-crashers on their inherent "right" to spread their brand of cultural goodness.

On the last, maybe it wold be better to generalize to "history is written by the survivors." Lots of dead Japanese and German leaders who might have written historical tomes disagreeing with Toland et al, but didn't get the chance. What I believe, I suppose, is what's supported with better primary sources and decent connect-the-dots. As I've gotten older I've dropped a lot of the filters I had as a young man re American "goodness." The world gets more complex and interesting as you age, if you let it. I think it's a sign of a mature culture to self-examine and self-criticize, but as I'm on the verge of a current-politics rant that would be against forum rules I'll stop here.[:)]

Np. Enjoyed the conversation.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Even Letters can't get away from making the main character "unrealistic".

Really, what some 200ish out of 20k soldiers were taken prisoner, but we get a main character that is one of the 200 and not one of the other 19800 soldiers - and the ones that commit suicide are the flag waving patriots?

It presents an inaccurate portrayal of the soldier. Good movie in general, but yet another typical hollywood US War Movie.

Your point is totally invalid. What would be the point of NOT choosing one of the 200 as a central character? I mean, Eastwood could have picked one of the thousands who died at Surabachi---but then who would you follow for the other 27 days of the battle? If you want to tell a story to the end, then it needs to be through the eyes of someone who was there to the end. That's not "Hollywood Horshsh-t", that's just drama.

[Snowman999]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
If you want to tell a story to the end, then it needs to be through the eyes of someone who was there to the end. That's not "Hollywood Horshsh-t", that's just drama.

Hey, it worked in Bambi vs. Godzilla.