PDA

View Full Version : Letters From Iwo Jima ...great war movie



CzechTexan
02-13-2007, 07:42 AM
I saw this movie for the first time a couple days ago and I thought it was a great war movie. The story was so much better than Flags of Our Fathers and the entire movie depicted Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima from before the battle started to its ending. I particularly liked the portayal of General Kuribayashi since I've read about him in the past as well as the main character, a simple and humble Japanese soldier.

If you like war movies then you should go see this one. It's in Japanese with English subtitles but this just gives it a more realistic touch. The scene with the Corsairs strafing would get a thumbs up from our Pacific Fighters crowd http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

CzechTexan
02-13-2007, 07:42 AM
I saw this movie for the first time a couple days ago and I thought it was a great war movie. The story was so much better than Flags of Our Fathers and the entire movie depicted Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima from before the battle started to its ending. I particularly liked the portayal of General Kuribayashi since I've read about him in the past as well as the main character, a simple and humble Japanese soldier.

If you like war movies then you should go see this one. It's in Japanese with English subtitles but this just gives it a more realistic touch. The scene with the Corsairs strafing would get a thumbs up from our Pacific Fighters crowd http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TC_Stele
02-13-2007, 09:37 AM
I saw the movie too. I liked it and I'm glad to see another movie with Japanese actors. Its not every year that you see Japanese actors/directors/movie makers on a WW2 movie project.

The Corsair raid and the level bombing were impressive scenes, although I'm sure there'll be a few complaints about the perfectly straight MG strafes.

claypidgon
02-13-2007, 09:44 AM
http://bestsmileys.com/puking/2.gif

TC_Stele
02-13-2007, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by claypidgon:
http://bestsmileys.com/puking/2.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Touche...

leitmotiv
02-13-2007, 01:22 PM
I thought both FLAGS and LETTERS were masterpieces. FLAGS did not throw a biscuit to the cultural lies we Americans relish, which PRIVATE RYAN institutionalized. In FLAGS Indians get the shaft, poor boys get the shaft, Marines get the shaft, bulls--t rules, survival is a toss of the dice. Mega graphic combat injuries probably nauseated the blood and thunder armchair heroes. Film shows how ready we are to believe in lies. If you wanted to set out to direct a box office disaster, you could not have done a better job. Only Clint could have made FLAGS---nobody else would have touched it. It's a film which will offend both right and left. LETTERS, I've already posted on it---it's a beautiful film. Eastwood gets better the older he gets---defies the rule.

steve_v
02-13-2007, 03:27 PM
If you haven't had the chance yet, pick up a copy of "Flags of Our Fathers" from your local library. It is more detailed than the movie, and makes for great reading. If you like it, James Bradley has another book titled "Flyboys". Both are excellent.

leitmotiv
02-13-2007, 03:28 PM
I'll do that, Steve. Every reader I know with a discerning eye thought FLAGS was a great book.

sukebeboy
02-13-2007, 04:20 PM
I live and work in Japan. (It was a Japanese guy I worked with who first got me into IL2. Hell, I'm using his old account to post on this board.)

The Japanese guys I know who are into history are pretty disappointed with Letters From Iwo Jima. They feel that the motivations, thought processes, and attitudes of most of the Japanese characters were not realistically depicted and were made to seem more Western in order to make it easier for Western audiences to empathise with the characters.

leitmotiv
02-13-2007, 06:03 PM
Well, it must have some virtue---it is a critical and box office success in Japan. I am trained in history and many of my friends are historians---they are never satisfied by films. The film does brilliantly depict the mentality of the brutal, sadistic mystical nationalists who got Japan's head into the ringer from 1930-on.

badaboom.1
02-13-2007, 06:35 PM
I second that on "Flyboys"what a fantastic read,I learned a lot and enjoyed it.

sukebeboy
02-13-2007, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Well, it must have some virtue---it is a critical and box office success in Japan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So was Pearl Harbour. Generally speaking, Japanese are a bit weird when it comes to war movies about Japan. They love to see how they're portrayed and then talk about how they feel victimized by the unfair portrayals.

leitmotiv
02-13-2007, 08:11 PM
I saw a Reuters piece about its reception in Japan---the most interesting comment was by one man who said it would have been perfect but for the director being non-Japanese! Now that is insularity!

CzechTexan
02-14-2007, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sukebeboy:
I live and work in Japan. (It was a Japanese guy I worked with who first got me into IL2. Hell, I'm using his old account to post on this board.)

The Japanese guys I know who are into history are pretty disappointed with Letters From Iwo Jima. They feel that the motivations, thought processes, and attitudes of most of the Japanese characters were not realistically depicted and were made to seem more Western in order to make it easier for Western audiences to empathise with the characters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see how that might be so. I had a sense that people would not like the movie because it had the Japanese showing their feelings and softer sides. On the other hand, who's to say there were not any Japanese like that? They can't all be hard-core. After all, they do like poetry, err haikus, and they have loved ones too. Anything can happen under conditions like that on a hopeless island.

I tried not to let politics or machoism (for lack of a better term) affect my view of this movie. I liked it as a story about war.

rcocean
02-14-2007, 08:59 PM
Glad to hear it.

Flags was simply awful, just more Anti-American nonsense and a bad screenplay.

Thats why it was a box office bomb.

Hope Letters won't be "All Quiet on the Western Front" in Japanese.

sukebeboy
02-14-2007, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rcocean:
Glad to hear it.

Flags was simply awful, just more Anti-American nonsense and a bad screenplay.

Thats why it was a box office bomb.

Hope Letters won't be "All Quiet on the Western Front" in Japanese. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? I thought that Flags did a good job of trying to show that many who might have been labelled heroes died anonymously as war doesn'T discriminate and luck and a cynical spin machine play a much more significant role than a lot of people feel comfortable in recognizing.

I don't know about any anti-American sentiment. I personally didn't see any in the film. In fact, I felt that the message of the film was somewhat cheapened by the near obligatory "stirring" music that was played every time Old Glory was unfurled.

rcocean
02-14-2007, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sukebeboy:
Really? I thought that Flags did a good job of trying to show that many who might have been labelled heroes died anonymously as war doesn'T discriminate and luck and a cynical spin machine play a much more significant role than a lot of people feel comfortable in recognizing.

I don't know about any anti-American sentiment. I personally didn't see any in the film. In fact, I felt that the message of the film was somewhat cheapened by the near obligatory "stirring" music that was played every time Old Glory was unfurled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad someone liked it.

I read the book "Flags of Our Fathers" and disliked the negative spin on the facts. I also hoped it would be SPR in the Pacific and more of a tribute to the Guys who fought there.

A lot of the audience got up and left the theater when I saw it. And 1/2 the audience must have been over 60. Not surprised it was a box office bomb.

Tator_Totts
02-14-2007, 09:57 PM
I just got back from seeing this movie. Talked the wife into it. Do not know if this was an accurate potraile or not. I got out of it the attempt to say the universal theme of mothers and wifes caring for their men and home. How cruel leaders of countries can be.

Different culture or not it does not make tactical sense to kill your self. I think better to fight dying than just kill your self.

As some other person posted this is not correct that Japanese culture do not care about family values. Or Clint did wrong in trying to humanise the Japanese?

fordfan25
02-14-2007, 10:51 PM
i liked flags of our fathers though i wish thay had not jumped around so much. also more time in the battle would have been nice even though i know it was not ment to be a action movie. i want to see Letters. also I think 99% of each movie should feature a F4u in action but thats just me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Marcel_Albert
02-16-2007, 03:45 PM
Yea , it's nice movie , the actors are good , Ken Watanabe rocks and the dialogs and messages are deep , as well as the fact that few movies before this one depicted the Japanese as human beings with weaknesses and empathy .


However , this movie is on purpose not showing some unpleasant events , not all were good hearted and fair , just read the numerous cases of cannibalism over Americans POW and pilots at Chichi Jima , tortures and brutal experience on the injured as well as systematic shooting of the weak etc..

I think Clint Eastwood wanted to make a movie to get the Japanese to break the taboo and watch massively the war of their fathers through a good perspective , to get them to speak , think and debate over it , and that is a good move by Eastwood , an American film-maker , the risk to offend them and create a "scandal" by showing the hardcore crimes was too high , but on the other hand , other movies should be done by Japanese themselves with a more balanced view about what really happened there . the hunger , how hard it was to keep lucidity under the bombings and napalm , the cruelty and dark sides of human beings under such circumstances . This movie is quite "romantic" compared to some books about it .

SeaFireLIV
02-16-2007, 04:23 PM
Sounds like a couple to add to the collection, methinks.

Tator_Totts
02-16-2007, 04:31 PM
Yes I saw this movie as more of a human interaction vs shootem up. The short corsair scene rocked.

WWMaxGunz
02-16-2007, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sukebeboy:
I don't know about any anti-American sentiment. I personally didn't see any in the film. In fact, I felt that the message of the film was somewhat cheapened by the near obligatory "stirring" music that was played every time Old Glory was unfurled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That music belongs. Part of loving your country is not wearing the colored glasses and seeing
things as much as they are as you can. That doesn't mean to love your country any less.

YES they lied about the picture. And they were right, they had to keep it going or they would
have let down every guy out there as well as all who were lost -- the war effort was BROKE.

Consider the reality that most Americans did not know about the attack on Pearl right away.
It's something that post-1960 Americans don't seem to be able to think. Most people got the
news of it at the movies or from the paper and a huge part of the population did not have
those or a radio. Many did not find out for two days and some longer.
There was no instant news. There were not many TV sets, even radios were less common then
than today. It was a whole different America, much slower than now.

So when a single picture suddenly has people jumping up and that took a good bit of time
then try to imagine how long to get people to understand the reality and the need of the
time? Once stalled there would never be such momentum again.

So perhaps you can understand how really patriotic that movie is and the extreme complexity
of the point? What those guys, especially Ira Hayes went through are the stories of those
men against the backdrop of that complexity and need. And there's an under story as well
about life in the US not being a majority of all-powerful and rich people, the great majority
of all the soldiers that returned went back to what they were doing before or would be doing.

Taste the dust along with the air. Clint did the same to cowboy movies with Unforgiven.

SeaVee
02-16-2007, 05:52 PM
I have not seen Letters from Iwo Jima yet but plan to this week end. I saw Flags of Our Fathers. Ok but a bit disjointed with the back and forth of the battle and the aftermath.

I have read Flyboys by the same author as Flags. A very good book. The author does go out of his way a bit to emphasize that the Japanese were not the only ones to have committed atrocities but in the end the aggregate barbarity of what they din in China, Asia and the Pacific in WWI stood out. He did a good job of getting the reader to understand that the typical IJA soldier was a product of the perversion of Bushido that the militarists who dominated the country back then had created. Even the Japanese themselves were the victims of those leaders - every bit as evil as Hitler and his cronies.

Some more historical perspective on what the occupation of China, Burma and the rest of the Asian/Pacific territory captured by the IJA would entail:

It has been documented that atrocities on a massive scale were perpetrated on POWs and civilians throughout the Japanese occupied territories.

The atrocities included widespread cannibalism which was officially written in to IJA policy as acceptable. In many of the occupied territories the IJA was incapable of being re-supplied with regular provisions so they were told to use "local supply". In many cases the lands and islands barely produced enough to sustain the indigenous population that already existed, much less the addition of many thousands of IJA troops. Those IJA troops were basically abandoned to starve by their country and very often resorted to cannibalism on a very widespread scale.

Accounts like these were very widespread, including in occupied Burma and the IJA did this to thousands of POWs including English and Australians and Americans. This has not been widely publicized or taught in historical accounts of the war and is not commonly known by the general public at large.

After the fall of Burma, Singapore, etc. the Japanese had captured hundreds of thousands of British Commonwealth soldiers including Indians and Pakistanis. A horrifying excerpt (one of many) from the book "Flyboys" by author James Bradley.

Do NOT read on if you are squeamish:

"Starving Japanese combat troops used battles as a hunt for food, but noncombat units had to devise other means. Japanese officials dispatched an engineering battalion deep into the interior of what is now Indonesia. The engineering battalion used Indo-Pakistani POWs, former Commonwealth soldiers captured in the fall of Singapore, as slave laborers. One of the soldiers was Pakistani Hatam Ali. Ali had been aware that sick prisoners unable to work were immediately shot or given lethal injections and then eaten by the Japanese. But by 1944, the Allies were closing in, supply lines had been cut, and the Japanese had started to eat live, healthy prisoners. Ali told this harrowing story to Australian investigators: Those selected were taken to a hut where flesh was cut from their bodies while they were still alive and they were then thrown into a ditch alive where they later died. When flesh was being cut from those selected terrible cries and shrieks came from them and also from the ditch where they were later thrown....'

The reason the Japanese butchers didn't kill the prisoners outright was that in the tropics, with no refrigeration, the meat quickly rotted. So they would just hack off parts of the body to provide a meal without killing the prisoner then toss him into a ditch, where he would survive another day or two, thereby ensuring that his internal organs remained fresh for later consumption."

MB_Avro_UK
02-16-2007, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaVee:
I have not seen Letters from Iwo Jima yet but plan to this week end. I saw Flags of Our Fathers. Ok but a bit disjointed with the back and forth of the battle and the aftermath.

I have read Flyboys by the same author as Flags. A very good book. The author does go out of his way a bit to emphasize that the Japanese were not the only ones to have committed atrocities but in the end the aggregate barbarity of what they din in China, Asia and the Pacific in WWI stood out. He did a good job of getting the reader to understand that the typical IJA soldier was a product of the perversion of Bushido that the militarists who dominated the country back then had created. Even the Japanese themselves were the victims of those leaders - every bit as evil as Hitler and his cronies.

Some more historical perspective on what the occupation of China, Burma and the rest of the Asian/Pacific territory captured by the IJA would entail:

It has been documented that atrocities on a massive scale were perpetrated on POWs and civilians throughout the Japanese occupied territories.

The atrocities included widespread cannibalism which was officially written in to IJA policy as acceptable. In many of the occupied territories the IJA was incapable of being re-supplied with regular provisions so they were told to use "local supply". In many cases the lands and islands barely produced enough to sustain the indigenous population that already existed, much less the addition of many thousands of IJA troops. Those IJA troops were basically abandoned to starve by their country and very often resorted to cannibalism on a very widespread scale.

Accounts like these were very widespread, including in occupied Burma and the IJA did this to thousands of POWs including English and Australians and Americans. This has not been widely publicized or taught in historical accounts of the war and is not commonly known by the general public at large.

After the fall of Burma, Singapore, etc. the Japanese had captured hundreds of thousands of British Commonwealth soldiers including Indians and Pakistanis. A horrifying excerpt (one of many) from the book "Flyboys" by author James Bradley.

Do NOT read on if you are squeamish:

"Starving Japanese combat troops used battles as a hunt for food, but noncombat units had to devise other means. Japanese officials dispatched an engineering battalion deep into the interior of what is now Indonesia. The engineering battalion used Indo-Pakistani POWs, former Commonwealth soldiers captured in the fall of Singapore, as slave laborers. One of the soldiers was Pakistani Hatam Ali. Ali had been aware that sick prisoners unable to work were immediately shot or given lethal injections and then eaten by the Japanese. But by 1944, the Allies were closing in, supply lines had been cut, and the Japanese had started to eat live, healthy prisoners. Ali told this harrowing story to Australian investigators: Those selected were taken to a hut where flesh was cut from their bodies while they were still alive and they were then thrown into a ditch alive where they later died. When flesh was being cut from those selected terrible cries and shrieks came from them and also from the ditch where they were later thrown....'

The reason the Japanese butchers didn't kill the prisoners outright was that in the tropics, with no refrigeration, the meat quickly rotted. So they would just hack off parts of the body to provide a meal without killing the prisoner then toss him into a ditch, where he would survive another day or two, thereby ensuring that his internal organs remained fresh for later consumption." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And the Japanese today deny it ever happened...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

claypidgon
02-16-2007, 08:06 PM
I wouldnt see "letters" if they payed me.I really would like to be able to tell MR Eastwood what I think about him making that movie.AND my only real regret is that we only had 2 bombs and that they were small ones...

SeaVee
02-16-2007, 08:58 PM
I'll see it because I know the Japanese of today are no more to blame for what happened than the Germans of today.

The A-bomb in fact saved many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives on both the Japanese and Allied side. Were it not for the A-bombs, the Japanese would have fought on and many more would have perished. Their cities would have continued to have been firebombed with "conventional" incendiaries and from which many more were killed than the A-bombs and that would have continued. The Japanese would have also immediately killed the approximately 350,000 Allied POWs as soon as invasion of the Japanese mainland commenced (there were formal orders and plans in place for this). They would have sacrificed virtually their whole population fighting a conventional invasion becuase the entire society was brainwashed - to a much greater extent than the German people.

I can;t remember the exact quotes but two have sort of stuck:

The degree to which Americans have shame over use of the A-Bombs on the Japanese is directly proportional to their ignorance of the realities of what the alternatives were.

Many more people were killed with Japanese Samurai swords than were killed with the A-bombs.

If you REALLY want to be sick, go to the bookstore and find the book "Rape of Nanking" - with many many pictures taken by the Japanese themselves of what they did to hundreds of thousands if Chinese civilians in that city. Such events were repeated all throughout the occupied territories throughout the war.

Phas3e
02-17-2007, 02:13 AM
Guess you wont be watching this one either claypidgon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyEel2ShQOk

sapre
02-17-2007, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaVee:
I'll see it because I know the Japanese of today are no more to blame for what happened than the Germans of today.

The A-bomb in fact saved many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives on both the Japanese and Allied side. Were it not for the A-bombs, the Japanese would have fought on and many more would have perished. Their cities would have continued to have been firebombed with "conventional" incendiaries and from which many more were killed than the A-bombs and that would have continued. The Japanese would have also immediately killed the approximately 350,000 Allied POWs as soon as invasion of the Japanese mainland commenced (there were formal orders and plans in place for this). They would have sacrificed virtually their whole population fighting a conventional invasion becuase the entire society was brainwashed - to a much greater extent than the German people.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

US strategic bombing survey doesn't agree with you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

"Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion."

"By March 1945, when the night incendiary attacks began and the food ration was reduced, this percentage(people who thought Japan could not win the war) had risen to 19 percent. In June it was 46 percent, and just prior to surrender, 68 percent. Of those who had come to this belief over one-half attributed the principal cause to air attacks, other than the atomic bombing attacks, and one-third to military defeats.

Sixty-four percent of the population stated that they had reached a point prior to surrender where they felt personally unable to go on with the war. Of these, less than one-tenth attributed the cause to military defeats, one-quarter attributed the cause to shortages of food and civilian supplies, the largest part to air attack. "

I strongly advise you to read some materials written by professional Japanese historian such as professor Hata Ikuhiko not only a book written by a heavily biased Chinese amateur writer such as Iris Chang.
And of course I'm going to be labeled a revisionist-nationalist-militarist piece of trash who even dares to question whether Japanese soldiers were really a bunch of savages with a IQ of 30.

FlatSpinMan
02-17-2007, 08:51 AM
Wow! Claypidgeon - so much hate. There must be a better way to live than that.

claypidgon
02-17-2007, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Phas3e:
Guess you wont be watching this one either claypidgon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyEel2ShQOk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://bestsmileys.com/puking/2.gif

rcocean
02-17-2007, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

US strategic bombing survey doesn't agree with you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

"Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion."

"By March 1945, when the night incendiary attacks began and the food ration was reduced, this percentage(people who thought Japan could not win the war) had risen to 19 percent. In June it was 46 percent, and just prior to surrender, 68 percent. Of those who had come to this belief over one-half attributed the principal cause to air attacks, other than the atomic bombing attacks, and one-third to military defeats.

Sixty-four percent of the population stated that they had reached a point prior to surrender where they felt personally unable to go on with the war. Of these, less than one-tenth attributed the cause to military defeats, one-quarter attributed the cause to shortages of food and civilian supplies, the largest part to air attack. "

I strongly advise you to read some materials written by professional Japanese historian such as professor Hata Ikuhiko not only a book written by a heavily biased Chinese amateur writer such as Iris Chang.
And of course I'm going to be labeled a revisionist-nationalist-militarist piece of trash who even dares to question whether Japanese soldiers were really a bunch of savages with a IQ of 30. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Total BS. The survey states without the A-bomb Japan probably would have surrendered before 1 November 1945. Do realize that thousands of Chinese, Indonesians, Russians, Japanese, Burmese were dying every day in August 1945.

Or that the British were about to invade Malaysia in Sept 45 or that the USSR was going to invade Japan in Sept 45? Or that we were losing 500 men a week on average in August 45.

Had the war continued another couple months the death toll would have been in the Hundreds of thousands. Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Indonesians, British, Americans. The Russian invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath.

Its irrelevnat what the average Japanese said after the war, in August 45 the war only ended becasuse the Army Generals and the Emperor decided to end it. The A-bomb was crucial in their decision to end the war.

Go read Falk's book "Donwfall".

SeaVee
02-17-2007, 07:12 PM
Sapre,

The point is that the 2 A-Bombs killed roughly 200,000 people, but the strategic bombing had already killed many many more than that. Had the strategic bombing continued - even if japan had eventually surrendered - a great many more people would have died in the process than died by those 2 a-bombs.

Also, like someone else said, interviews with Japanese after the ware may or may not have accurately reflected their true sentiments. Regardless, that society was utterly and totaly dominated by the military. Even if the overwhelming majority of the population was ready to quit there was NO WAY they could possibly express that.

Why else do you think virtually all the Japanese soldiers fighting on Iwo, Okinawa and everywhere else fought to the death or killed themselves? The way things were in that culture in that time period, until they were told otherwise there was simply no other option.

leitmotiv
02-17-2007, 07:45 PM
I knew the son of a man who was in the Bataan Death March and he hated the Japanese with a passion. I also know a 105 year old American gent who was imprisoned by the Japanese in the Philippines, was almost shot by them, and came home a shadow of his former self. He didn't hate them, but he was wary of them, and he never forgot the madmen in the Japanese Navy slaughtered 100,000 Manilans before they were put down like mad dogs. For recreation he read Japanese literature in Japanese and admired their culture. Recently I was looking at a Philippines International Plastic Modelers Society site and I was amazed at how many WWII Japanese weapons they built. If they can forgive the Sons of Heaven, I can. The Japanese and the Taiwanese are the best allies we have in the Far East, and both will go down fast if the balloon ever goes up. Poor buggers.

TC_Stele
02-18-2007, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by claypidgon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Phas3e:
Guess you wont be watching this one either claypidgon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyEel2ShQOk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://bestsmileys.com/puking/2.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that all he says?

Anyways Phas3e, thanks for posting that. I've always been interested in seeing Japanese WW2 movies, no matter what the message or story is.