Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cuchulain]

I thoroughly enjoyed it, thought it was poignant and powerful.

And before I make a couple of comments, may I state that it is, of course, important for nations to commemorate and celebrate the war-time efforts and achievements of their fellows, ancestors and forbears. I believe, so far, "The Pacific" has done an admirable job in this, as indeed "Band of Brothers" did before it.

One concern, however, did arise for me. Might this not contribute to the distortion of history already well under way, and worsen the misunderstanding of WWII currently evidenced through film and TV? If one merely took their understanding through popular culture, people might be led to believe that both world wars were waged and won almost entirely by the US. In reality, WWI saw the Germans already mostly broken and retreating by the time US forces arrived at the front, and victory in Europe in WWII was largely due to the Soviet efforts on the eastern front. Indeed, even the Normandy landings would not have been possible if Britain had not won the air war and largely crippled the German air force - all before the US was even in the war. The only nod towards other nations being involved mentioned in "The Pacific" so far was the snide comment that the US might have to come along and help everyone else out, to general chuckles all around. Of course, this might have properly reflected the attitudes of the individuals portrayed, but still, to a populace not greatly educated in world history, this serves to reinforce a misconception.

This is not in any way meant to denegrate the labours and sacrifice of any of those who participated in these events - just some musings on a worrying trend. 

Thoughts?

[Vester]

I'm sorry, but I just have to ask this, for the sake of nationalism:

Were there any Filipinos in the episode you watched?

[RedKing]

Except that the Pacific was the theater where it really was the US v. Japan for the most part. The Brits had been knocked out of the war early in the East, as had the Dutch. The British were involved in some nasty slogging in Burma (in part because they were worried that India might welcome an invading/liberating Japanese army) and the Australians were a key strategic ally by providing supply bases, but the vast majority of the fighting (especially the island-hopping campaigns that this series focuses on) was done by the Americans.

But yeah, WWI is kind of amusing the way it's taught in schools here, when it's taught at all. The impression kids get is "So Europe was beating up on each other for like three years and millions of people got killed, and then we sent our army over and the Germans were all like, "Oh shit it's the Americans! Ve are surrenderink!"

[Realmfighter]

The propaganda never ends.

[fenrif]

I've been watching the pacific each week, was a huge fan of band of brothers so I assumed I'd love this. Up to episode 4 I think at the moment, and It's starting to get really dissapointing. Whereas BoB focused on a handfull of guys equally, letting us see how the war affected them all in different ways, The Pacific is mainly about just one dude.

The episode was especially lame, with a lengthy section that didn't really move the plot forward, or have anything happen at all. It was like 20 minutes of screentime just to convey the message that war sucks. And the main conflict of the episode wasn't really presented to the audience at all, just mentioned over and over again. There was a fight, which is always good to watch because they've got the firefights and action sequences down, but when you watch ep 4 you'll see them belabour the point that the jungle was horrible, and its only tangentally shown.

Hopefully It'll start picking up now theyve got all the "OMFG guys war sucks like alot!" out of the way. The preview for episode 5 looked allright at least.

As for the historical accuracy: well I think its pretty spot on. Both this and band of brothers seem to take great care to keep the little details true to life, and convey the emotions and experiences of real life veterans (some times to tbe point of beating a dead horse, perhaps). Both of them focus on the USA forces yeah, but its made by an American company, with American money, so fair doos to them.

If you're interested in another POV in the pacific campaign, there was a film a year or two ago that came out showing the australians fighting the japanese, called kodoka. Very good film:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_%28film%29

[Cthulhu]

I only saw one episode, where a Japanese guy got shot a bunch of time by Americans teasing him.  I wasn't actually paying attention.

And yeah, it shouldn't be a huge requirement to give Britain, France, etc. screentime when it's a Pacific Theatre series.

[Krumbs]

The Pacific is good, but I think band of Brothers was better. I'll need to wait till I see all the episodes first though before I make my final judgment.

[Cuchulain]

Yes - don't get me wrong, I think this series does a good job at focusing on its subject matter. For the Pacific theatre, a US focus is, of course, appropriate. I will be interested to see what mention, if any, of Australia there is in the series (being an Australian living and working in Australia) - at the moment we've been mentioned largely as "a base for the US war effort" - I suppose a strictly accurate picture from a US point of view, but nevertheless somewhat condescending considering our own military history.

And yes, it's a US company, US film crew, US subject matter, so of course a US focus. The only problem with that is that the US dominates these avenues of popular culture, through force of economy and scale; preferential trade agreements mean that other countries are not capable of adequately representing their own side of the story. Consequently, a US-centric viewpoint is not only prevalent in the US (don't get me started on looking for History lecturing jobs in the US - for the most part they don't want you unless you're a US specialist) but is actually exported to other English speaking countries.

[Char13magne]

Hi guys! New on this discussion topic but I wanted to get my say into the fray. I agree largely with other previous comments made about the prevolence of American forces in the Pacific, and that on the fronts fought on by American forces, few Allied Europeans were present, but I do agree that, even if it would present a slight innaccuracy in terms of writing, I think that other nations should at least be included in conversation so as to, at the very least, ensure that us crazy Americans don't think we won it alone, or that we even could have! But then again, my specialties are the Wars of the Roses and the Napoleonic war, so ignore the insane blabberings of an ignorant fool.

Cheers!

[Heron TSG]

on the fronts fought on by American forces, few Americans were present

In the battle of Leyte Gulf (in the Phillipines) there were 738 American ships and 1712 aircraft. That's not exactly 'few.'

On land, American 175,000 troops were deployed. At Normandy, the total number of allied troops was 195,000.

[Char13magne]

on the fronts fought on by American forces, few Americans were present

In the battle of Leyte Gulf (in the Phillipines) there were 738 American ships and 1712 aircraft. That's not exactly 'few.'

On land, American 175,000 troops were deployed. At Normandy, the total number of allied troops was 195,000.

Sorry, typo. I meant allied Europeans. I have corrected it. 

             Cheers!

[Leafsnail]

It's not at all true that only American's fought the Japanese... Britain didn't fight Japan directly, but British Empire soldiers were pretty vital in controlling them to the west.  It seems unfair that these people are always completely forgotten...

[Char13magne]

It's not at all true that only American's fought the Japanese... Britain didn't fight Japan directly, but British Empire soldiers were pretty vital in controlling them to the west.  It seems unfair that these people are always completely forgotten...

Well, to be fair, I didn't quite say that only Americans fought Japanese, I said, to be precise, that generally it was Americans fighting Japanese on this front (by which I meant the region portrayed in the series at hand).

                  Cheers!

[Jackrabbit]

I've only seen the one episode of The Pacific. I'm really looking forward to seeing more. But, despite it being an American focused show, I do hope they give a bit of glory to the Australians. Presumably they will, I'll have to wait and see.

I've skimmed this topic and so I'm confident this marginally relates to the discussion.

[Aqizzar]

I've only seen the one episode of The Pacific. I'm really looking forward to seeing more. But, despite it being an American focused show, I do hope they give a bit of glory to the Australians. Presumably they will, I'll have to wait and see.

I doubt it ever features Australians fighting, since the focus of the show is pretty small and centered on a unit that I don't think ever fought alongside any ANZACs.  However, this is one whole episode devoted to the unit rambling around Brisbane (or someplace) while training and on leave.  It seemed flattering enough of Australian civilian life, i.e. remarkably like wartime England but with slightly different accents and less blown-up.