Flags of our Fathers

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:42 pm

Awesome awesome awesome movie! Go see!

More emotionaly draining than Private Ryan â€“ especially since it is a true story. It tells waht happened to each of the men who raised the flag on MT Suribachi on Iwo Jima.

At the end of the movie, a flaming B 29 is shown landing on Iwo Jima. If they were going to show that, they probably should explained that Iwo was needed as an emergency strip for B 29's returning damaged from Japan

The movie doesn't hands-down accept that WW2 was the 'good war.' At the same time it does nothing to dishonor the brave men that fought in it. It postulates at the end that there are no true heroes; (I'd disagree) but just soldiers who don't want to let the boys in their unit down â€“ moreso than patriotic acts.

The movie shows how the flag-raisers were returned home and exploited for bond-selling purposes because the government was heavily in debt from fighting the war. I'm not sure, but I think by 1944, the economy had significantly recovered and was actually booming, even if govt cofffers were empty.

I'm nitpicking - the movie is powerful & raises good questions - go see it!

Massage...Bored · Post by **Massage...Bored** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:05 am

I chose The Prestige this past weekend, over Flags. I think I made the right choice.

Eastwood has another film coming out in the Spring called Letters from Iwo Jima or something that tells the story from the Japanese perspective and goings on in Flags happen in the background of some of the shots, they overlap a little.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:23 am

I've seen a few people reading the book around the office. I've been ruining the ending for them all week.

We do end up winning that war; hate to spoil it for you.

Seriously though I do wanna see this. I'm intregued by the whole "not a good war" aspect because it always seems wrapped in gold and honor. I've only heard great reviews; and I love military stuff so this will be watched.

PS: did you know more airmen died over Europe then all of the marines that died fighting in the pacific? I caught that little tidbit on the History channel this weekend. They were showing a special on ball-turret gunners.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:16 am

Will eventually see this.

The movie doesn't hands-down accept that WW2 was the 'good war.' At the same time it does nothing to dishonor the brave men that fought in it. It postulates at the end that there are no true heroes; (I'd disagree) but just soldiers who don't want to let the boys in their unit down â€“ moreso than patriotic acts.

the difference between WWII and any other war the U.S. has
been involved in the last 100 years, would be that this may
have been the only one where the country was truly united
with purpose and conviction towards victory.

I would also like to see the version from the Japanese perspective.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:10 pm

WBOB wrote:Will eventually see this.

The movie doesn't hands-down accept that WW2 was the 'good war.' At the same time it does nothing to dishonor the brave men that fought in it. It postulates at the end that there are no true heroes; (I'd disagree) but just soldiers who don't want to let the boys in their unit down â€“ moreso than patriotic acts.
the difference between WWII and any other war the U.S. has
been involved in the last 100 years, would be that this may
have been the only one where the country was truly united
with purpose and conviction towards victory.

I would also like to see the version from the Japanese perspective.

That's how history has treated it, but WW2 was not very popular either at the time.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:14 pm

bassjones wrote:
WBOB wrote:Will eventually see this.

The movie doesn't hands-down accept that WW2 was the 'good war.' At the same time it does nothing to dishonor the brave men that fought in it. It postulates at the end that there are no true heroes; (I'd disagree) but just soldiers who don't want to let the boys in their unit down â€“ moreso than patriotic acts.
the difference between WWII and any other war the U.S. has
been involved in the last 100 years, would be that this may
have been the only one where the country was truly united
with purpose and conviction towards victory.

I would also like to see the version from the Japanese perspective.
That's how history has treated it, but WW2 was not very popular either at the time.

Wasn't saying it was popular,... (none are)
Saying it was successfully seen through to the end.
(not counting the following Cold War predicament as part
of this)

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:32 pm

Saying it was successfully seen through to the end.

I would say part of that was clearly defined military goals. (Not that there weren't problems, I know the allied generals had their differences in doctrine...) but as a whole the goal(s) was(were) publically addressed.

It wasn't the 'Global War on Facism / Socialism / Imperialism'.

rezin · Post by **rezin** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:46 pm

i thought of you when i saw a commercial for this keith...

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:13 pm

sharkmansix wrote:
PS: did you know more airmen died over Europe then all of the marines that died fighting in the pacific? I caught that little tidbit on the History channel this weekend. They were showing a special on ball-turret gunners.

I didn't know that statistic. What is really sad about that stat is that some historians theorize that arial bombing had very little effect on the outcome in the European theatre. German production actually increased as allied bombing continued.

Strategy in the Pacific, however, centered on the B29, and getting it close enough to Japan to bomb it into submission. The firebombings of Japan killed more JApanese than the two A bombs combined. We weren't so concerned about military/civilian target differentiation with Japan as much as we were in Europe.

Each plane that went down - sometimes entire squadrons, was 10 guys:

Pilot, copilot, navigator, bombardier, flight engineer(my dad's position on a B26) Tail gunner radioman, 2 waist gunners, ball turret.

Engineers early on wanted to make the bombers unarmed, making them streamlined, lighter, and thus faster. This was unpopular, even though it would have saved lives. It didn't catch on until the B29's out of Tinian (the Atomic planes) were stripped down.

Oh, and Wiki says I was wrong: Iwo was to be a possible staging area for further invasions, but the B29 emergency base was thought of after the island was captured. 2k B29s landed there, mostly non--emergency.