Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


The Pacific - Idle Chit-Chat - The Lounge - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Apr 15th, 2010 11:30 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
Doc C
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 1st, 2006
Location:  Eastern Shore, Maryland USA
Posts: 822
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Haven't seen a post on the HBO series The Pacific. IMHO not as good as Band of Brothers but not bad, worth watching. Maybe it's because the European campaign was primarily in France/Italy whereas the Pacific campaign was scattered throughout the Pacific.

Doc C



 Posted: Fri Apr 23rd, 2010 10:16 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
Captain Crow
Proud Southerner


Joined: Sun Jul 13th, 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Posts: 542
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I find it to be much darker in tone than BOB. That being said, I find it to be every bit the equal of it's predecessor as far as acting, direction, and production values.....the story it tells however is just not as "pleasant" to follow. I am interested to see how they handle the invasion of Okinawa. I did quite a bit of reading on the subject before my trip there last year so I'm anxious to see if they get it right. BTW Okinawa in August....NOT for the faint of heart...whew that place was hot.



 Posted: Mon Apr 26th, 2010 02:45 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The Pacific and European theaters had some very interesting and compelling differences.

 

The Pacific campaign of island-hopping created periods of intense combat followed by lulls of re-training. The ETO was pretty much three long campaigns (for Americans): Africa, Italy and northwest Europe. For the troops, the fighting was continuous.

 

In some ways, the PTO had a static series of objectives that, once taken, could not be recaptured. The objective was the current island and the men knew, no matter how horrific the casualties, that they would rotate out of the front line.

 

In Europe the situation was very fluid. Germany could, and did, counterattack and ‘un-do’ weeks and months of Allied gains. Berlin was the only true objective.

 

All areas in the ETO were reachable by enemy aircraft until mid-1944 when the allies achieved air supremacy over allied and occupied territory.

 

Ernie Pyle tried to capture the differences while in the Pacific at the end of his life and caught a lot of grief for his reporting…

 

 

HankC



 Posted: Wed Apr 28th, 2010 08:12 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
Old Sorrel
Member


Joined: Thu Mar 15th, 2007
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 66
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I have to agree, Band of Brothers was better. Its not bad. The story line just doesn't flow like B.O.B. But over all, I like it.

Cheers 

Old Sorrel 

Last edited on Wed Apr 28th, 2010 08:13 pm by Old Sorrel



 Posted: Wed Apr 28th, 2010 09:20 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
Doc C
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 1st, 2006
Location:  Eastern Shore, Maryland USA
Posts: 822
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Wish to pose a question. I realize that both theatres had their share of horror. However, was it because that the enemy was Japanese, attacked Pearl Harbor and a different race that there was a greater hatred than against the Germans. In The Pacific I feel a greater hatred for the Japanese that I didn't see or feel in BOB. I remember discussing the war with my father. He served in the navy during the war and was stationed on Guam and other islands. One of his friends was killed in his tent on Guam by a Japanese soldier months after the fighting ended. Even after many years I could still since his anger toward the Japanese.



 Posted: Thu Apr 29th, 2010 11:38 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Doc C-

  It can be truthfully said that race played a part in the fact that Americans in general felt a greater hatred for the Japanese than the Germans (Who looked more like us).

  It would also have to be said that a good deal of this feeling was generated by the fact that the Japanese attacked US, and that it was a sneak attack as well. (The Japanese had intended to declare war before the attack went in, but due to the incompetence of their embassy staff, the declaration came after the attack had begun).

  So now the Americans had to deal with a different race and an alien culture. The Bushido code considered surrender to be dishonorable, and those who surrendered to be dishonored. In addition, the Japanese never signed the Geneva Convention. Thus, mistreatment of Allied prisoners was a common practice. Something like 40% of US POWs in Japanese hands died, compared with less than 5% of those in German hands. (Though there were atrocities there as well).

  Because of their warrior culture, the Japanese fought with great fanaticism every step of the way. The concept of kamikaze attacks, for example, was foreign to our western culture, but it made perfect sense to the Japanese. The fact that suicide attacks took many thousands of American lives only fueled the hatred felt by our side. It made it much easier to justify a war of extermination against so: "Inhuman" an enemy.



 Posted: Thu May 6th, 2010 04:14 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

some random thoughts:

1) US-Japanese relations, at least at a high level, were very good after 1905 when Theodore Roosevelt won the Nobel Prize for brokering the end of the Russo-Japanese war in terms quite favorable to Japan. I'd like to find a book that explains the downward spiral from 1905 to 1941...

2) germans were definitely much like Americans. Many germans spoke english and many amercans were 2nd generation germans.

3) the japanese fought war in a far different way from us. They fought and then counted the bodies when over - no matter how they died. The US was incensed when a handful of captured fliers were interrogated, weighted down and tossed overboard at Midway, but carpet bombing cities was an acceptable policy. The Japanese saw it as: 5 bodies for us, 100,000 for you...


HankC

HankC



 Posted: Thu May 6th, 2010 06:28 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank C-

  Responding to the first part of your last posting, I would say that while relations between the US and Japan might have been considered good in 1905, that the national interests of the US and Japan would inevitably be in conflict as the 20th century continued.

  In the late 1860s, Tokugawa era Japan was transformed by the Meiji Restoration. As the 20th century approached, the Japanese sought to advance themselves into a modern nation by closing the gap between themselves and the western powers in both the economic and military spheres.

  On the military side, the Japanese used the Prussian model for their army and the British model for their navy. To transform their economy to an industrial one, many Japanese went abroad to study western societies. The resulting rapid industrialization led to increased industrial infrastructure and output. This in turn led to an increased feeling of nationalism among the citizenry.

  Forward thinking Japanese realized that their nation was lacking in natural resources needed to sustain a modern economy, for example, oil. The western powers could control Japan's ability to secure these resources, and this was an intolerable situation for the Japanese. The newly nationalistic Japanese sought to insure access to these resources. The way to do this was to become a regional power.

  Advancing this goal, the Japanese forced a treaty to involve themselves in Korea in the 1870s. They opposed Chinese interests in the region.

  The military was expanded in the 1880s. By the mid 1890s, they provoked the Sino-Japanese War, the aftermath of which increased Japan's influence in the area. They sought expansion into Manchuria, directly opposing the Russians.

  The Japanese sought an alliance with Britain to advance their agenda, and the 1905 victory over the Russians put Japan into the big leagues. By 1910, the Japanese had expanded further into Korea, the Ryukus, and Taiwan.

  Trade conflicts with the US in the 1920s increased Japan's feeling of isolation. The forced naval limitation treaties were viewed as unfair by the Japanese, so they secretly violated them.

  In the 1930s, the Mancurian Incident and the invasion of China led to more confrontations with the west. By then, it was clear to the Japanese that in order to stop the western powers from being able to limit their access to oil and other resources, they would have to expand their empire into areas controlled by the Americans, the British, and the Dutch.

  In order to accomplish this objective, the Japanese saw war with the western powers as being eventually necessary. The national interests of the US and Britain required worldwide distribution of military resources. The Japanese were happy to limit themselves to accomplishing their goals in the Pacific region

  By 1941, the Japanese Navy was the strongest force in the Pacific. Their equipment was the most modern, and they had trained for years.

  The increasingly contentious political relationship with the US (due to the oil embargo and other things) forced the Japanese (in their view) to submit or fight. Finally, they considered that it was time to fight.



 Posted: Thu May 6th, 2010 08:29 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

that is a very good summary!



 Posted: Fri May 7th, 2010 03:05 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
Doc C
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 1st, 2006
Location:  Eastern Shore, Maryland USA
Posts: 822
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

A distant ancestor of mine, Franklin Buchanan, was with Perry when he first landed in Japan.



 Posted: Fri May 7th, 2010 04:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

  The future Confederate admiral Franklin Buchanan was the captain of the paddle steamer USS SUSQUEHANNA, which was Commodore Perry's flagship when he arrived at Tokyo Bay in 1853.

USS Susquehanna (1850) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  I have noticed in the USS SUSQUEHANNA link above an oil painting of the SUSQUEHANNA along with the sailing frigate USS CONGRESS as they appeared in 1857. The CONGRESS was one of the two ships destroyed by Buchanan when he commanded the CSS VIRGINIA on her first sortie to Hampton Roads on March 8, 1862.

 

Last edited on Fri May 7th, 2010 04:41 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Sun May 9th, 2010 02:06 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

that is a very good summary!
No, Hank. It's a super summary.

Ole



 Current time is 12:51 pm
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1817 seconds (12% database + 88% PHP). 25 queries executed.