Tom Hanks’ Pacific War Revisionism

March 12th, 2010 at 6:30 am | 38 Comments |

| Print

Is there something in the water in Hollywood?  Or is it just that difficult to stay grounded in reality when you are paid $20 million for six weeks of work in which you bring fantasy to life?  I expect left-wing drivel to spew from the mouth of a Sean “I (heart) Hugo Chavez” Penn and his ilk.  But et tu Tom Hanks?  Now there is a blow to the solar plexus I didn’t see coming.

Mr. Hanks’ newest project, The Pacific, is a companion piece to Band of Brothers about to be aired on HBO.  If Band of Brothers is any indication of the quality of this new mini-series, it should be a delight for amateur historians like myself (especially one whose father was in the 1st Marines—albeit Korea not WWII—explaining my deep interest in the Pacific War).

However, the actor/producer’s recent statements about the Pacific War seem a bit out of whack with the history itself – one that Hanks of all people should understand.  “Back in World War II,” he says, “we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

First of all, Mr. Hanks makes a fundamental error in labeling Japan’s cassus belli as some sort of national objection to our “way of living.”  It was more practical than that.  The island nation lacked any raw materials and thus waged a war of conquest to obtain what it needed; particularly in Southeast Asia from which it imported most of its rubber, ore, and especially oil.  As for the Americans, the Japanese viewed the U.S. Pacific Fleet as the greatest threat to its ring of island fortresses that protected their empire as well as a very real and growing threat to their sea lanes.  Knowing that our industrial might once ramped up would be overwhelming, they gambled on destroying our fleet with one knock-out blow at Pearl Harbor.  It didn’t work.

It was the very under-handed nature of the attack itself that brought out the animosity in the U.S. populace against the Japanese as opposed to Germans or Italians.  But as those throughout Asia who fell under Japanese military rule could testify, Dai Nippon’s racism was of a much more overt and vicious kind.  In fact,  Japan had been waging a brutal war against their “inferior” Chinese neighbors in the region for a full decade before she ever set her eyes on Hawaii.   For Mr. Hanks to subtly omit the visceral racism instilled in the Japanese from on high, and expressed in such atrocities as the Rape of Nanking or the sacking of Manila in which hundreds of thousands of helpless innocents were butchered by Japanese soldiers in the most violent and sickening of ways, is to falsify by omission.

Now, no one can deny that our own racism played a part in our prosecution of the war.  After all, the United States in 1941 was a much more European-descended nation which could account in part at least for the incarceration of Japanese-Americans while German/Italian Americans got a free pass.  Part of it was a matter of our educational system.   As the late William Manchester observed, American kids’ textbooks in the 1940s taught that civilization started at the conjunction of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and marched steadily westward to culminate in North America at the waters of the Pacific.  So it was natural that we viewed the war in Europe among common ancestors in places like France and Italy (places we knew well) in a different light than the war in the far off Pacific with a nation so alien to us and that blatantly attacked us while we literally slept.

But racism was not something unique to the West.  If most Americans viewed the Japanese as a diminutive buck-toothed and bespectacled Gilbert & Sullivan race, the Japanese viewed their Occidental enemies as hairy beasts, unclean, barbaric and on a par with dogs — even going so far as to display American POWs in animal cages in their city zoos.

And those Asians who were nonetheless non-Japanese, be they Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Burmese, etc. were subjected to sadistic cruelties and unimaginable violence that could only be rationalized by a people indoctrinated through systematic propaganda into believing themselves “spirit warriors” utterly superior to those races whose countries they now controlled by force.

But much of the sense of a bloodlust, or desire for “annihilation” on the Americans’ part to which Mr. Hanks refers is misdirected in the sense that this is the way Americans prosecuted both fronts, especially from the air.  It is estimated that the USAAF bombing raids in the ETO killed over 300,000 German civilians.  Having a common genealogy did not spare the people of Dresden, Bremen, Essen, Cologne or Berlin from our bombs.

In another interview, Mr. Hanks cites as evidence of his claims of American “racism and terror” that “it would seem as though the only way to complete one of these battles on these small specks of rock in the middle of nowhere was, I’m sorry, to kill them all.”  Naturally, the actor conveniently leaves out the fact that the Japanese rarely surrendered but rather chose to fight to the death… and take as many Americans with them in the process.  In war it is “get or get got” as my dad used to say… especially when fighting a fanatical enemy whose stated goal was to kill ten Americans before they died.  So only those who have fought an enemy who would often feign surrender and then hurl hand grenades at their captors can judge the men in the field.   I would imagine if the Germans fought to the death, rather than surrendered en masse, that the history of the ETO would be just as savage.

Perhaps the most ignorant observation Mr. Hanks’ makes, however, is his comparison to our modern day war against terror.  To make the claim that we are waging war on Islamofacists because, presumably, we view Muslims as “different” not only is an insult to the nation but betrays a stunning ignorance of contemporary history.  The fact is that no nation has done more to protect, defend and better the lives of the world’s Muslim populations than the United States.  From ending the Muslim genocide through force of arms in the Balkans to overthrowing murdering despots in Iraq and paving the way for a freer society, this nation has been a most positive force in the lives of millions of Muslims around the world.  The ones waging war on those who are different because they are different can be found cowering in caves hiding from F-18s and A-10s… they are not the men and woman in the cockpits, nor the nation they defend.

So in answer to Hanks’ question:  “Does [killing those different from us] sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” I can answer that—NO!  Next question.

The Pacific War was probably the most savage war in which our country has ever been involved.  We fought an enemy whose brutality was unfathomable to us before the war began.  We very quickly learned that the Japanese soldier was one who would fight to the death and would torture and mutilate you if you were taken captive along the way.  We saw them willingly sacrifice their lives in senseless banzai charges and waves of kamikaze air assaults.  We saw a people who seemed perfectly willing to commit national suicide rather than surrender and end a war they could not possibly have won.  So I am wary of the one-sided judgments cast by the likes of Mr. Hanks, living comfortably as a mega-millionaire celebrity and separated from the beaches of Tarawa or the jungles of Buna or the streets of Manila by the chasm of time and life experience.  I certainly hope his 10-hour epic will be more true to history than his own take on events… otherwise I may find myself as disappointed in the production as I am in the producer himself.

Recent Posts by Brad Schaeffer

38 Comments so far ↓

  • Jeffry1

    Damned straight Mr. Schaeffer! And very well said sir. Wouldn’t expect this revisionism from Tom Hanks!

  • mlindroo

    Tom Hanks:

    > “we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods.
    > They were out to kill us because our way of living was different.
    > We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different.
    > Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

    Schaeffer concedes:
    > Now, no one can deny that our own racism played a part in our prosecution of the war.

    So why write a lengthy 1367 word-long sermonette in that case??

    Hanks has done quite a few “patriotic” movies (Apollo 13 etc.) so it’s just plain silly to feel “offended” because Hanks does not mention Japanese atrocities in the same sentence.


  • franco 2

    Very good and comprehensive take-down of the assumptions behind Hank’s word-view.

    My father was a guest of the Imperial Japanese. From his personal story and others I’ve read, the Japanese were exponentially more racist than America EVER was.

    The atrocities committed by the Japanese were legion and still under-reported. The fanaticism, arrogance and pure evil of their common practices apparently are unknown to Tom Hanks.

    I’d like to hear Tom Hank’s comment on this :

    Hollywood displays unfathomable ignorance on a daily basis.

  • Jeffry1

    It looks like you spent more time counting the words than actually reading the content Marcu$. Hanks’ looks like a moral relativist. I have seen and read the full interviews Shaffer refers to. The one about killing them all was on Morning Joe. Not once does Hanks mention that the Japanese would refuse to surrender which is why they all had to be killed. Never once does he make it sound like anything other than, as the author writes here, a “blood-lust’ on our part to kill them all.

    The Jpas are the most racist people on the globe. Yet once again Hollywood places the finger of blame on us.
    Suggestion: READ the article. Then comment Marcu$ (what’s with the $ sign anyway?)

  • franco 2


    It’s the moral equivalence that’s the problem. You, like Hanks are unable to differentiate.

    In being unable or unwilling to make distinctions, you inadvertently sanction atrocities and brutality. See?

    If you equate not letting someone drink out of the same water fountain, with not letting them drink water at all, or with executing them en masse or subjecting them to ghoulish medical experiments or merely starving them, then you are elevating the brutes. Is that what you want to do?

  • Jeffry1

    Why does Hollywood view America (the liberators of the Philippines) with such contempt while it would give the butchers of Nanking a morally equivalent elevation? What hypocrites.

    Thank God for American “racists” otherwise the world would be a much uglier place. Ask the people of Nanking how nice the Japanese were.

  • Independent

    If you’ve followed the conventional liberal meme about WWII, the right war was the War for Europe and the wrong war, for all the fake rationality inside the liberal brain that is was just about racism, was the War of the Pacific. Hanks only gives voice to the lie –he didn’t start it.

    As the son of a 3rd Marine sgt who learned first hand of the march through the Pacific from a grunt-to-CMSgt dad who was there, I have to say that Hollywood often gets both the reality and rationale for war wrong. I watched him cringe in his seat as Hollywood presented anti-war movie after anti-war movie in the period from 1970-2000. I watched him smolder as one Hollywood airhead after another used their celebrity to advance their personal opinions about Korea, VietNam, WWII-Pacific and Kuwait. Jane Fonda need not reapply; Tom Hanks has it covered.

    Getting it wrong isn’t only possible in the “wrong war” to the liberal mind –it’s happening today. The absolute false “but-we-want-you-to-think-it-aint” Green Zone movie. Uber liberal Matt Damon teams up with what Ed Bagley and Whoopi Goldberg would think is an all-star liberal team to present a film that fictionalizes major elements of the Iraq War –another “wrong war” to the farLeft… and Obama. Frankly, having Michael Moore or Oliver Stone direct it would have brought more balance to the piece –and that’s sarcasm.

    Hollywood values spinning Hollywood lies? And Tom Hanks is supposed to be immune? What planet are you from, pal?

    Who is it that says the farLeft Hollywood values don’t infiltrate movies? Oh yeah, liberally biased film critics in the liberally biased MSM.

    I’m sure someday we’ll learned more about all the efforts of Saddam and his despotic murdering thugs to secure dirty nuke weapons and turn them over to the network of suicide bombers he was so fond of supporting… but Hollywood won’t make a movie about it. It would be contrary to the “wrong war” meme that is so prevalent in that culture and animates the farLeft.

  • Independent

    correction, it was Master Sgt… my bad, Dad.

  • Jeffry1

    Carney: Read your own source more thoroughly:

    “Although there were anomalous cases of U.S. native-born Italian Americans being caught in the round-up, the others had been born in Italy and were still Italian citizens, even if many of them had resided in the U.S. for decades.”

    Many of the Japanese were mult-generation Americans. Not the same thing as foreign born natls.

  • Carney

    The striking thing when you look at it is how foolish the Japanese attack on us was. True, we had cut off their access to oil with our embargo, so they had to either abandon their aggression in China to get us to drop the embargo, or conquer the oil-rich Dutch East Indies, to resume access to oil. In choosing the latter, they were obsessed by the fear that our Philippine colony was in between the Indies and their home islands, and so they decided to seize the Philippines as well, meaning war with us, meaning Pearl Harbor.

    But what made the Japanese think we’d go to war to protect a mere colony of the (now conquered) Netherlands from Japan? We hadn’t gone to war to protect the Netherlands from Nazi Germany!

  • franco 2

    And it was their hero Roosevelt who did it.

    The really bad thing and actually TRAITOROUS thing is that these films are made as much for INTERNATIONAL consumption as for here in the USA.

    And these Hollywood types think that a mistreated detainee recruits terrorists? Hollywood movies do a much, much better job.

  • Jeffry1

    Hollywood tries to push the whole: “They were just regualr guys like us!” mantra. Well, I think the men of the Bataan Death March or poor Chinese, Korean and Filipinos who were starved, raped, tortured, abused and butchered by the millions by the Japanese invadrers would beg to differ.

    Again, moral relativism run amok.

  • sinz54

    Liberals like Hanks have every right to be sickened by war. I’m sickened by it too.

    There’s no glory in bombing an enemy city into a raging firestorm and incinerating tens of thousands of women and children. It’s a dirty, sinful, necessary evil. Necessary. But still evil.

    In the case of the current war, we were doing NOTHING–until 9-11 happened. Prior to 9-11, the Government wasn’t whipping our people into a state of racial frenzy or superpatriotic resolve. There were no racist marches with racist people chanting “Let’s kill those ragheads!” We were just going about our own business. No one was even talking about Afghanistan.

    And if Osama bin Laden would just surrender and disband al-Qaeda, our troops would probably be home within six months.

    But, just like the Japanese militarists, he won’t do that.

  • sinz54

    One thing that liberals ignore–deliberately–is that racism isn’t unique to Western Caucasians.

    The Japanese prior to the end of World War II were incredibly racist. They regarded Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos as scum. The expropriation of white farmers in Zimbabwe is partly rationalized by the anti-white racism of Mugabe and his supporters.

    But you won’t hear about those from liberals.

    The collective guilt trip that liberals have about the West, started the moment the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. If you read the news stories from those days, you’ll see the second thoughts from the Left about what America had brought into the world.

  • Tom Hanks' Pacific War Revisionism | FrumForum | the world

    [...] more here: Tom Hanks' Pacific War Revisionism | FrumForum Tags: america, brutality, brutality-seen, hanks, his-recent, latest-project, more-true, pacific, [...]

  • Jeffry1

    Yes Sinz…it is not Hanks’ views about “war” in general that the author here calls into question. One would assume that he does not like war and in one of his previous articles hints that Korea had a lasting phsychological impavt on his veteran Marine father. But it is Hanks’ seeming indictment of America as wanting to kill Japanese just to kill them…showing no context whatsoever but instead leaving an uneducated viewer with the impression that we went to war against Japan solely because we didn’t like “slant-eyes” (to use Hanks’ term). As Schaffer shows, it was more pragmatic than that and, in fact, it was the Jpanese who waged wars of racial conquest. We just degenerated to their level because it was the only way to beat a fanatical enemy. Anyone who has seen films of Japanese civilians jumping to their deaths on the cliffs of Siapan (I think?) needs no reminder of what maniacs the Japanese really were. Germans surrendered…Japanese holed themselves up in caves and waited for Marines to come and get them before blowing themselves and the unlucky Americans up with them. Of course you shoot first and ask questions later after seen that once or twice. Doesn’t make you brutal or “racist”. Just smart!

  • franco 2

    “In the case of the current war, we were doing NOTHING–until 9-11 happened. Prior to 9-11, the Government wasn’t whipping our people into a state of racial frenzy or superpatriotic resolve. There were no racist marches with racist people chanting “Let’s kill those ragheads!” We were just going about our own business. No one was even talking about Afghanistan.”

    Yes, and if anyone really wants to get their heads back into a more innocent, profoundly non-racist time, just watch the first 20 minutes of the film United 93, where four young middle eastern men were completely ignored and treated just like anyone else, wholly benign entities as non-threatening as grandmothers or children. Even I, as a completely cynical person, was almost dumbstruck.

  • Tom Hanks' Pacific War Revisionism | FrumForum

    [...] the original here: Tom Hanks' Pacific War Revisionism | FrumForum Post a [...]

  • Independent

    Sinz54 observes: “It’s (war) a dirty, sinful, necessary evil. Necessary. But still evil.”

    No, it’s not necessarily evil nor sinful. Maybe you need to brush up on what constitutes a Just War.

    The money quotes: “The danger of war will never be completely removed prior to the Second Coming. Christ’s followers must be willing to meet this challenge. They must be willing to wage war when it is just and they must be willing to wage it in a just manner.”


    “Simultaneously, they must work to establish a just and peaceful order among the nations. In so doing they seek to fulfill the words of the prophet, according to which the nations “shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Is. 2:4). “”

    Of course, for the anti-religionist zealots that sometimes emerge on FF, you probably don’t care about philosophy or what the Catholic Church teaches –which is fine ’cause you’re going to hell anyway.

  • The Moral Equivalency of Tom Hanks « The Clampdown

    [...] the act, as does the always fascinating Victor Davis Hanson on PajamasMedia and Brad Schaeffer at Frum Forum. They’re all saying the same thing as me, but [...]

  • aDude

    One thing that strikes me is that the years from about 1930 to 1945 have some of the worst atrocities ever committed by man. In Germany, the Nazis murdered some 6 million Jews (and many millions of Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, dissidents, etc). In the Soviet Union Stalin murdered millions through the collectivization of the farms and millions more during the Great Terror. Japan murdered tens of millions of Chinese civilians during their decade long occupation of China. Simultaneous genocide across the globe. I know of no era in history where such a thing was happening. For the religiously minded, you now have a blueprint for what the real Tribulation will look like.

    In the face of such evil, it is not surprising that there will be moments where normal human compassion falls by the wayside. Given the evil committed by the Germans, the bombing of Dresden was not remotely comparable. The Rape of Nanking dwarfs the casualties at Hiroshima. And at least Hiroshima had the effect of ending the war, while there can be no military rationale whatsoever for the actions of the Japanese Imperial Army in Nanking. That was pure evil.

    The war in Germany and Japan required that the Allies utterly defeat military forces that could not be fought to a draw. We had to completely occupy Germany to force surrender. We had to begin the elimination of cites in Japan in order to convince the government that surrender was the only alternative. (The firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 actually killed more than the bombing of Hiroshima).

    Would we engage in the same kind indiscriminate warfare today? No, we wouldn’t. The enemy today isn’t an entire nation. We aren’t facing tens of millions lined up against us. Instead we have a small number of extremists who must be dealt with on a much smaller basis. There are some who think we are at war with all Muslims. That is wrong, and I think that is what Hanks was referring to.

  • DFL

    Tom Hanks not only is a rotten actor, he is a rotten American. Thanks Mr. Schaeffer for exposing this little rat for the simpering little liberal that he is.

    Germany started the war in Europe. Japan started the war in Asia. Both were catalysts in the killing of millions of people, including their own people. It took supreme sacrifices to end the bloody march of Germany and Japan. America can hold its head high when considering our war effort in World War Two.

  • Sparrowhawk

    The moral relativism apparent in Hanks’ remarks is a leveler and destroyer of all values. Hanks, however, has never really depicted moral values except in terms of altruism and self-sacrifice (most notably in “Saving Private Ryan“), which also are also destroyers of values. Hanks, like all practicing altruists, can’t really depict assertive, pro-life values, because those require some intellectual sallies and he is primarily an emotionalist, and that‘s the best altruists can do. “John Adams” failed to communicate the moral stature of John Adams as a political philosopher and activist; except perhaps for Part I, in which he defends the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre; the production otherwise was just a naturalistic depiction of things that happened to Adams. But, Hanks is not the first to express moral relativism on the big screen in a war movie. Don’t forget Clint Eastwood’s “Letters from Iwo Jima,” and all the anti-war movies from the 1970’s onward (the list is too long to cite here).

  • athensboy

    Why is it that conservatives put every action and every word spoken,by anyone,under a microscope,then try and find something “offensive”about it?Its like they look for something to bitch about.Maybe if conservatives looked in a mirror more often they could find something offensive about themselves and fix it.They are the the thought police,the word police, and the action police.Unemployment is 10%,but what Tom Hanks said about WW2 is all consuming and worth a rant? Conservatives just love to judge everyone, its like they exist in a higher moral ground.Dear conservative movement,you too are fallible,your not perfect,your not smarter than everyone else in the room.Your poop stinks too.Please come off your high moral horses and join the rest of us.

  • Independent

    athensboy finally gets it and unintentionally describes the last 8 yrs of Geo Bush’s life with: “Why is it that conservatives put every action and every word spoken,by anyone,under a microscope,then try and find something “offensive”about it?Its like they look for something to bitch about.”

    Yeah, I was thinking that pretty well summed up the entirety of NancyP’s and Harry gReid’s professional whining of the last 8 yrs… with a little Chuck Schumer tossed in to ramp up the obnoxious factor past New Jersey levels.

    athensboy, people are chiding Tom Hanks because his words above reflect a Hollywood mindset or San Fran values that are inherently, undeniably anti-American and corrosive.

    And he used the power to make movies to advance those anti-American, liberal and lying perspectives… just like Matt Damon and his crew of misbegots are doing in “The Green Zone”. Hollywood masquerading as political advocacy. Last time that happened, it was the Red Scare and conservatives were doing it… I’d thought liberals and the farLeft would have learned.

  • agentprovocateur

    “Last time that happened, it was the Red Scare and conservatives were doing it… I’d thought liberals and the farLeft would have learned.”

    The only people at the moment who are emulating the Red Scare is the vile Liz Cheney and her minions.

  • sinz54

    Jeffry1: Why does Hollywood view America (the liberators of the Philippines) with such contempt while it would give the butchers of Nanking a morally equivalent elevation?
    Vietnam, baby.

    The baby-boom generation of Hollywood writers and producers all came of age during that war. And that war left a very sour taste in the mouths of the idealistic Left who comprise much of Hollywood.

  • SFTor1

    It seems to me that Tom Hanks is a decent, patriotic American who knows a thing or two about how to depict the human being at war. For those who believe his mission is to spread political or philosophical points of view, it is good to remember the old Hollywood adage: “If you want to send a message, use Western Union.” Tom Hanks lives by it.

    I am sure Tom Hanks will succeed again as he did with “Band of Brothers:” he told the story of American boys in war, not the politics, not the ideologies. He is far too steeped in the material and the period, far too thorough not to know the racism of the WWII Japanese. You can count on it, just as you can count on him having read “With The Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa” more times than you.

    I read the comment, and if I am to be the judge he is referring to blanket demonization of other people, in this case Moslems. I agree with him. It is a sentiment that must be fought, especially today. Clint Eastwood made the same point in “Letters from Iwo Jima,” not in the least because Japanese soldiers become much richer characters once they have a human face.

    And now please make your choice for the evening’s entertainment: do you want “Saving Private Ryan” or “Green Berets?”

    I thought so.

  • Jeffry1

    Actually SFTor1 Band Of Brothers will probably have a different spin on it than will The Pacific because of the fact that it is co-produced by Spielberg and there was an entire episode on BOB called “Why We Fight” featuring the 101st liberating a concentration camp. Hollywood has viewed the Eurpoean theatre as “the good war” because of the the Holocaust liberation aspect to it.
    It is kind of hard to be a Jewish producer/director/writer in Hollywood and not depict the boys who liberated your people from the concentration camps as anothing but noble beings.

    In the Pacific, their liberal tendencies will probably play out more (especially considering how much like their buguboo Vietnam it all looks…Asians, jungles, etc.) . You see, Hollywood liberals view America as an inherenty flawed country, one that has the mark of “racism” upon it and so when the Hanks’ pf the world look east to the PAcific, they will see American brutality and racism…which they do not see in the ETO.

    I hope there is a “why we fight” like episode in the The Pacific that shows Americans save Filipinos from being massacred by the Japanese or liberating prison camps in which helpless POWs were systematically, tortured, beaten, starved, and worked to death (not to mention dissected alive, purposefully infected with disease, tied up and used for bayonet practice, etc.). But I doubt it. Hollywood, in its desire to show the world how non-racist it is, really doesn’t care so much for liberating the citizens of Manila as it does for Paris. So in short we have hollywood’s view of WW2: ETO = “Good War” PTO = “Race War”. Got it.

  • Ignore Hanks and Watch “The Pacific” | FrumForum

    [...] blogosphere are attributing the apparent low ratings to Tom Hanks’ comments about which I wrote last week.  I certainly hope not.  After all, The Pacific is an homage to the men who fought and [...]

  • S.L. Toddard

    “First of all, Mr. Hanks makes a fundamental error in labeling Japan’s cassus belli as some sort of national objection to our ‘way of living.’”

    That is the same fundamental error Neoconservatives make about the cassus belli of Al Qaeda.

  • tracyanne

    Of course it’s a revisionist view of history. What else would one expect. Like band of brothers, which gives the impression that the British, the Australians the New Zealanders and all the other Allies never existed, This latest piece of American fantasy also sets out to give the impression that all but for the valiant, courageous Americans, we in Australia would be speaking Japanese.

    I’ve been watching the ads, on tele, for this great epic fantasy, the coming episode (or perhaps the whole shebang) is titled “Saving Australia”, and not one Australian soldier is to be seen.

    The truth is WE, the Australians and New Zealanders saved Australia, WE saved Australia at Kokoda. WE – our fathers and grandfathers slogged through the mud in the mountains and rainforests of the Kokoda trail. Our fathers and grandfathers fought the Japanese to a standstill and drove them back. WE, the Australians and New Zealanders at Kokoda saved Australia, NOT some Johnny come lately yanks.

    Like all great American war fantasies, this latest made for televion epic fantasy by Tom Hanks and Steven Speilberg, is total revisionism.

  • sooners24

    Unless you have stepped into what these guys have lived, you have nothing to say. What he is trying to do in this film, is portray the lives that those men lived during a time of uncertainty, terrain, weather, disease, and most importantly a distraught view on reality. Speaking from what I have viewed in my time in WAR/Combat, I can take to heart the actions that this film is trying to portray. SO I SAY TO YOU INDIVIDUALS THAT SIT ON YOUR ASSES RIPPING OTHERS FOR WORK, SHUT UP! Let the man do his work, at least he is attempting to do right… What are you doing?

  • tracyanne

    quote::Let the man do his work, at least he is attempting to do right…

    Bilge, utter rubbish.

    He’s trying to make as much money as he can from yet another American War Fantasy, where the great heroes with American accents stride across the landscape to save the world. It’s no less a fantasy than Marvel Comics’ character Captain America, or the Fantastic 4 or Spider man, or Superman for that matter.

    The truth cannot be found in this war fantasy, any more than it can be found in any other great American war fantasy.

    It denigrates the efforts of the Australians, the New Zealanders and the New Guinea Tribes who helped the ANZAC soldiers on the Kokoda trail. It denigrates them by omission, as all American war fantasy denigrate the heroes of other countries by omission.

    Once again: we saved Australia (our fathers and grandfathers, not you yanks, who came in late and swept up after us, and claimed the the glory by rewriting history in your great war fantasies.

  • Market Outlook » Blog Archive » Ignore Hanks and Watch “The Pacific”

    [...] blogosphere are attributing the apparent low ratings to Tom Hanks’ comments about which I wrote last week.  I certainly hope not.  After all, The Pacific is an homage to the men who fought and [...]