MovieChat Forums > Air Force (1943) Discussion > An ending full of hate

An ending full of hate


This move really had me engaged and sympathetic until the final scenes of the all-out air attack on the Japnese fleet bound for Australia. First of all, it was not a battle but a lopsided massacre of practically helpless soldiers and sailors (Where was the Japanese air cover over the ships anyway?). Secondly, it seemed like you were supposed to enjoy seeing the enemy getting blasted to bits or burned alive. There was more to this than watching their ships get hit and sunk with impossible never-miss accuracy. The camera lingered on the suffering and dying aspects of the people under the bombs as if the audience were supposed to be reveling in the butchery. I was sickened and saddened to see this sort of vehement hatred in a film, even one made in war time by the supposed "good guys". I thought this sort of hatred was limited to movies like Germany's "Eternal Jew" and similar films. I also noticed the heavy-handed attempt to point up all the sabotage by the "dirty Japs" in Hawaii. As far as I know, there were no cases of such treason during the Pearl harbor attack or thereafter. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "Die, you bastards!" finish of this movie really poisoned what was an interesting, seemingly accurate period film up to then. Maybe I'm too sensitive, but it really got to me. I'd be interested to see what Japanese-made movies of this time were like.

reply

The first night after our landings at Guadacanal four (4) Allied Heavy Cruisers three (3) American and one (1) Australian were ambushed in a night engagement and sunk for our worst defeat ever at sea. Japanese loses were very minor. The Allied seaman were in effect in a "lopsided massacre", for real though. When reported to the Japanese people We doubt they shed many tears. We cannot wring our hands over an obvious war period propaganda film like AIR FORCE. Yes you are being "too sensitive". Maybe you need to read a few books on how DIRTY the Pacific War really was. We recommend 'War WithOut Mercy; Race and Power in the Pacific War' by John W. Dower. The Pacific War was fought with a ruthlessness whose only rivalry was that on the Eastern Front between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. One (1) final note the Japanese felt about the Chinese as the Nazi Germans felt about Jews and others they thought were expendable. There is a difference in their philosphy though. The Nazi Germans wanted to create a master race, the Imperial Japanese thought they were the master race.

reply

All of your points are very valid. I've read the Dower book and learned a lot from it, especially how the racism in the Pacific War was not confined to the Allied side. I still respectfully disagree on two points. First, I've seen many war era films where the destruction of enemy forces is shown only in a distant, abstracted sort of way (i.e. bombs falling on a factory, a torpedo hitting a ship, etc.). The emphasis, spoken or not, is that our forces are hitting their enemy's fighting power. Some films (like this one) go beyond that and seem to enter the realm of wanting to see the opponent suffer. There is a sense of revelling in the pain of other human beings, not just in beating back a foe's aggression. The distinction lies in the intended interpretation of what's being shown. When you show your enemies bleeding and burning and don't intend to convey the idea that war makes people do ugly things, but that "dirty rats" are getting their just desserts, and that the suffering is supposed to be somehow sweet to watch, there's something wrong here at a very visceral level. Secondly, I don't think our side should stoop to portraying enemies in this crude and vengeful way, even while a conflict is raging. The distinction between "us" and "them" should be that there are some things that we just do not do, no matter how seemingly helpful or fulfilling they may seem under the exigencies of their times.
However, having said all this, I have to add that films like this should be seen as products of their times. They should not be censored or banned as "punishment" for the ideas they contain or exalt.
Thanks for replying. Since people live within their own heads, it's good (and necessary!) to hear other opinions.

reply

Your comments are thoughful and well structurted, but you fail to realize the conditions that occur during a war of NATIONAL SURVIVAL. There is a well made point in the post war film TWELVE O'CLOCK HIGH, parapharsing "We are in a shooting war now and I don't have much patience 'in that what are we are fighting for stuff'. There is no time". At that time and maybe in some future conflict we will not have the time for your sensitivity. It is a luxury that can only be indulged in a peace time retrospect. Not with somebodies foot on your throat when you need the whole nation to stand to arms pull together and accept sacrifices of the most terrible kind. In that situation your enemies problems or how they are portrayed are the least of your worries.

If you would like to look over some of our comments/reviews just find xerses13 and you can start with the M.G.M. film 6,000 ENEMIES. Just click on xerses13 and expand. You will see we are not so harsh in our movie comment/reviews and will be surprised and amused.

reply

It was 1943. I'd imagine the whole country would like nothing better than to watch a depiction of an enemy that had ruthlessly attacked us beaten to a bloody pulp. This was war, right? The Japanese would have certainly used any opportunity to eliminate as many of our ships, seaman and soldiers as they could. Mercy was not in their vernacular, that's for sure.

reply

Hate is a way over used expression these days. Lighten up....it was a war movie, for crying out loud.

reply

I just finished watching Air Force and thought it was a very good movie As for the ending, I would hardly call it racist as it war and the movie was made for the American public.The Japanese did not follow the Geneva Convention, nor did they recognize the Red Cross and let's not forget Corregidor and Bataan.
If I was alive during that period and just watched this movie at the cinema, I would be cheering knowing Our Boys were taking it to the enemy.

reply

no one in the movie ever said anything except "dirty.ratatat" or "japs" which was a common ephitet at the time. not to mention that this was after all a movie and likely never happened as portrayed. our first counterattack against the japanese fleet was successful and a great moral booster for america. so all you youngsters who think movies are real should get a life and stop mouthing off about things that you know nothing about. my dad was there.

reply

[deleted]

An ending full of hate my a$$. Cry me a river. Hey, get a clue. You're supposed to hate your enemy, that's war. Don't like it? Let the guys who have courage handle it and save your sorry tail. No, what, we should have sympathized with them more? Yeah, that would have won the war.

I love people today trying to be sympathetic to an enemy that ruthlessly attacked the US, tortured the Chinese, marched our people on death marches, and read into a freaking war movie things that aren't there.

What about the young man getting hit on the way down on his parachute, the plane coming back several times to do him in? These things happened. He was shown being cut down pretty badly, as well as tons of US soldiers defending the island. Were there some people now cheering those deaths on? The film was pretty balanced for the time. Call it propoganda, but civilians die, the captain dies, the navigator gets killed, and a ton of US service men get killed. But hey, we didn't portray the enemy right. Good lord.

I thought the movie was excellent, and some of the more obvious model shots became alot more integrated in the final battle scene in some segments that hold up today. The acting was good if some of the dialog was much less trite than in many other war films.

How would you have preferred the US Air Force to be depicted, as inhuman killers?

Oh no, you would have to be a liberal today saying that about TODAY'S military. So sorry, my mistake.

reply

Thank you thomas 196X2000 for your comments. You are completely correct. It is not a very intelligent argument when a liberal person gets emotional. There is a reason why people say "war is hell". You also can't put your liberal social morays of today into a world war in the 1940's, for God's sake. It was a different time, a world that was much more black and white, good vs. evil. Yes, war propaganda is somewhat slanted, (by all warring parties, I might add)but the portrayal of the Japanese is actually quite correct. The Bataan death march wasn't done by the Dutch was it ? Japanese war atrocities are well documented. Deal with it. Life isn't so "pollyanna".

reply

I agree with the original poster, though not that the intent was "full of blind hatred", but rather that many of the scenes in the movie, particularily the ending were stupidly modified to portray some kind of "super-uber" allied skill, and to portray the axis as totally vicious and stupid maniacs. But as you'll see at the end of my comment, that had a purpose as well.

1. FLEET ATTACK - The attack at the end, showing an ENDLESS steam of Japanese ships exploding under 100% accurate bombing and torpedo attacks was juvenile and boring. Not one bomb missed, and every bomb that hit destroyed its target absolutely.

In real life, you would have seen most of the bombs miss, and the few that did hit would not have exploded an entire ship in one blast.

Also, you would have seen many more allied aircraft falling out of the sky due to Japanese air cover and AA fire.

I know it's not a strict documentary, but an entertaining compromise would have been to see more bomb misses, and some initial hits that only caused secondary explosions. You still could have shown a number of ships going down, but not the entire fleet, that's just a schoolboy's fantasy.

It is MUCH more entertaining to experience the stress of hit and miss combat, rather than just a fish in a a barrel massacre. You don't cheer for the hero if every shot he fires hits with unerring accuracy. At that point, he's just a machine, and boring.

2. FIGHTER VS PARACHUTE - Yes, there were SOME instances of aircraft attacking pilot and crew in parachutes (on ALL sides), but there is NO WAY that a fighter is going to shoot a guy in his parachute, then wait for him to land, then strafe him again, then strafe him AGAIN (for a third pass)! ANY attack pilot from any armed service of any country knows that you NEVER attack the same ground target repeatedly, and certainly not from the same direction. As we saw in the movie, the fighter was shot down - which was a very likely outcome in real life as well, and rarely risked by any halfway intelligent pilot.

3. HANDHELD HEAVY MACHINE GUNS - Though the "Ramboesque" handheld .50 cal machine guns at the end (removed from the bomber) were certainly dramatic, the accuracy of fire from such a use would be no better than a random scattering of bullets. There is no way that individual solders are going to be able to hold and aim such weapons accurately without at least a tripod mount.

4. OVERALL "HATRED/ANGER" - It's funny that the people that support the movie's approach actually GET EMOTIONAL when they are deriding other people for getting emotional! But the overall point is that this movie was DEFINITELY produced for a purpose during a particular point in time, and to analyze the movie as strictly entertainment, outside of a wartime environment, is a mistake. But is is ALSO a mistake to propose that the simplistic propaganda in this movie would be as appropriate or entertaining in a NON-wartime environment. It would not, it insults the audiences' intelligence when it drops real-world accuracy to make an emotional scene.

Take this movie for what it is, a semi-accurate, semi-entertaining piece of wartime fluff that was meant to stir up the emotions of its audience to support the allies and hate the axis. No more, no less.

reply

NOTHING STATED NEW HERE.

reply

"In real life, you would have seen most of the bombs miss, and the few that did hit would not have exploded an entire ship in one blast. "

Ask those who were on the U.S.S. Arizona about that. One well placed armor piercing bomb from a level bomber sent her to the bottom of Pearl Harbor.

reply

Yes, good point.

Butttt. That's a lucky shot that hit a magazine. Pretty rare. In ship to ship battles (Bismarck/Hood etc.) it usually took a lot of shots before a magazine or fuel bunker was exploded.

reply

You're correct, they were rare. You mention Bismark, she took a brutal beating and was most likely scuttled. You also mention Hood, she was taken out with a single shot, lucky or not, surprisingly to all. Just as surprised as that Japanese aircrew would have been when they saw the Arizona blow up.

reply

Also, only one shell from the German pocket Battleship 'Bismarck' scored a direct hit on Britain's largest and fastest battleship, the 'Hood,' and completely destroyed it. There were only 3 survivors out of a crew of 1418. The German shell had pierced the deck and directly hit the Hood's powder magazine which produced an incredibly massive explosion that blew the ship to smithereens. The shock of the loss of Britain's largest battleship caused the British armed forces to go after the Bismarck in strength and to eventually sink her. Perhaps the British should apologize for sinking the Bismarck and for not letting her escape into the Atlantic to sink unarmed merchant ships and kill unarmed merchant sailors?

Regarding the brutal conduct of war against the Japanese, the Japanese had a fanatic no surrender, fight to the last man policy. Also, Japan has never admitted or apologized for the massive atrocities they committed against prisoners of war and non-Japanese civilians (space does not permit me to go into the German atrocities committed against mankind). Japan continues to deny that it committed any war crimes (by the brilliant reasoning that they were not a signatory to the Geneva Convention regarding the humane treatment of prisoners of war). Perhaps these bleeding heart idiots want the Allies to apologize to Japan for 1) showing the brutality of the war they started, and 2) for Japan's refusal to do the right thing regarding the prisoners of war. Although internment was unnecessary, none of the Japanese or Japanese descendants interred by the United States and Canada were starved, beaten, tortured, beheaded, or otherwise murdered like the millions of civilians and prisoners of war that were starved, beaten, tortured, beheaded, mistreated and murdered by the Japanese. In fact, the Japanese who were interred for the duration of the war have received financial compensation and an apology from the governments of the United States and Canada. The families of the civilians and Allied prisoners of war murdered by the Japanese have received nada, nothing, not even an apology. Of course it's too late now since the surviving family members of those murdered by the Japanese are now mostly deceased. Although the aggressors and instigators of the war, Germany and Japan benefited more from the war than the Allies (especially Great Britain), e.g. free money to re-build their countries and economies. Meanwhile, the gold bullion, national treasures, and private art works looted by the Germans and Japanese from the countries they occupied during the war, have never been returned to their rightful owners. Finally, the amount of war reparations supposed to be paid by Germany, Japan and Italy are a joke.

I am a small 'l' liberal, but these ignorant, bleeding heart apologists are a travesty. They distort the truth, defy logic and corrupt honesty. To me, showing the horrors of war are a deterrent, not an incentive, for war.

If you live in the past, you are blind in one eye. If you forget the past, you are blind in both eyes. (Russian Proverb)



This message has not yet been deleted by an IMDb “administrator.”

reply

Bismarck was not a pocket battleship. She was huge.

reply

Actually, they were .30 cal Browning mock ups. A .50 cal "Ma Deuce" weighs a ton with ammo.

Hollywood, yes - But entertaining.

reply

You're welcome Bill!

reply

I certainly threw a rock into the hornet's nest with this one, didn't I?
All of the points made in reply are very valid, although I wonder at the vehemence of some of them. I know this film is a creature of its time, made as propaganda while our country was fighting the greatest war in its history. I'm very aware of Japanese cruelties and atrocities during the war. I'm glad we won World War II.
But I still think there is nothing wrong with looking back at this film from our point in time and recoiling in disgust at the crudity, hate and downright fakeries of parts of it. (The big sea battle at the end never happened. It's a mishmash of the Coral Sea, Midway, and the Bismarck Sea battles, cooked up for audiences back home into a supposedly satisfying payback-themed massacre.) Propaganda may be necessary in wartime, but it's always ugly in its lies and omissions. Whether it's a Goebbels speech or a Hollywood spectacular, thinking people should look at such productions later, when passions have cooled, and feel unease at their sheer simplistic hatefulness.

reply

And people who come along 64 years later, having grown up in a world made safe and prosperous by the people who worked, fought, loved, and often died prematurely at the hands of a ruthless enemy should expect to be sternly criticized for looking down on those heroes.

Air Force was one of the top grossing movies in America in 1943, if not the number one. You should seek to learn more of history and try to understand the feelings of Americans over what the Japanese had done to them.

reply

1st - there was not Japanese invasion of Australia so the whole ending is bogus. The Japanese Army had rejected this early in 1942. Nor did our lst bombers hit the Japanese mainland take off from Australia. And, earlier in the film, none of the B-17s are shown landing at Hickam which is a very famous seen shown often in later films. Perhaps at this time, certain events were still under security ????
2nd - this film is from when what was left of the 'free' world still had several knives at its collective throat. God bless those British fliers (Churchill's quote about them is absolutely true). We owe them so much for standing almost alone against the Axis' agression.
3rd - in addition to what the Japanese did to comattants, "The Bridge over the River Kwai" was littered with local bodies not just POWs and then there is what the Japanese did to the Chinese people (the rape of Nanking).
4th - then, of course, my Marine uncle who I never had the opportunity to meet because he is buried at Punchbowl. He never had the chance to become to great basketball star he might have been.

Daughter of an 2nd Inf. Medic

reply

More black and white because of the tremendous govt campaign to get us all to think alike but there were dissenters in the hatred of the enemy in that time. The support for the war was never total. The fact that some resisted that effort was a testament to the strength of their views. Many who had suffered through the disaster of WWI were very resistant to propaganda the second time.

And what the Dutch did in their colonies doesn't bear examination. Ditto for the French and their slave labor. Fortunately for us, they didn't do it here.

One might also point out that not all military personnel hated the enemy. The views in the military varied depending on experience and beliefs. It was largely a citizen army of both volunteers and draftees encompassing a wide range of ages. Studies suggest that most soldiers in that era were more concerned with their own lives and the lives of the their buddies and family than with ideology or the enemy. They did what they had to do to get home. They didn't want their actions glorified and they didn't want to talk about it--it was just too horrible. They did things that would have shocked and appalled folks in the States. But there were people who went crazy and couldn't stop talking about the joy of killing and what a rush it was. It was as mixed a bag as it was possible to get and this movie tries to show one aspect. I give them credit for making the war a little less sanitized for your protection.

reply

[deleted]

What the hell does "liberal" got to do with it?

reply

I am willing to wager that moms and dads and brothers and sisters and sweethearts and wives of the Americans killed at Pearl Harbor would
have more than a few choice words for you and your bleeding heart.

There is now even a revisionism going on that the sneak attack at Pearl
Harbor was simply a slidshod error of bad typing skills, and so the Japanese
government didn't get the document to Cordell Hull until after the attack was
over.

And, as a matter of fact, these folks I mentioned above likely did enjoy seeing the enemy blown apart and die horribly.

If you would take some time to learn history instead of simply going to your feelings sixty years after the fact, you might learn that the United States didn't start the war. (And don't give me that blather about the Japanese merely looking out for their interests with a sneak attack.)

reply

A few last comments ...
Thanks to "rockmail" for his/her kind comments which put into better form what I had been trying to say, and (really!) thanks to all you others who at least read my posting.
I'm probably not the hippie Commie some of you seem to think I am. I'm a guy and almost fifty years old. I've served in the U.S. Navy and stood on the battleship "Arizona" memorial at Pearl Harbor watching a shimmering ribbon of fuel oil rising still from the tomb of over a thousand sailors and Marines. I have no illusions about Pearl harbor or the Pacific War in general. In fact, I started reading about World War II when I was about eight years old after seeing a movie like "Air Force" and asking my dad (who lived through the conflict in Nazi-occupied Europe) why it took so long to win the war if we could slaughter our enemies so easily. He told me to go to the library and check out some books about the real history of the war, which sparked an interest in me that has never died. I would put my knowledge about WWII respectfully up against any of the posters on this board (of course, I defer completely to any veterans who were really there at the time).
I'll end with a paraphrase of the judge's final speech from the movie "Judgment at Nuremberg", which expresses the way I feel about my country and war in general: "There comes a time in the life of a nation, when the hand of the enemy is at its throat, where that nation must decide whether to adopt the enemy's methods, and thereby become that enemy. ... For it is not merely a question of survival, but of survival as what?"

reply

Just goes to show what happens when people assume--an ass out of you and me.

reply

Speaking of history, jporter, you need to brush up on your own. The Japanese, Kuruso and Nomura, were ordered by their headquarters to decrypt and type up the last message to Secretary of State Cordell Hull them selves. This is why they were delayed by over two hours in delivering the document. It was supposed to be delivered just before the attack on Hawaii, not after.

Nevertheless, the negotiations continued long after the Japanese had irrevocably committed to attack Hawaii (November 26, 1941) as a deliberate subterfuge to distract the US government, the message did not include a declaration of war, but only a number of spurious complaints and an ultimatum, and delivery was planned to be before the attack on Pearl Harbor to give the Japanese a cover for public opinion while denying the United States any opportunity to prepare for self defense. In other words, It was a deliberate sneak attack.

reply

You saw the movie right? Well were is your sentiments about the complete ambush of the Japaneses on Pearl Harbor? Certainly a more lopsided attack then you are referring to. Also I understand the Japanese really were something else. They give the Nazi's a run for their money and they might of took it. Someone brings up the point hat the Japanese thought they were the master race. That is somewhat true. People were so concerned about the nationalistic philosophy that the Japanese held that is the reason they were not allowed to rebuild a armed service after WW2. It was not because they were our enemy it was because of that. So don't feel sorry for the Japanese as far as this is concerned.

reply

[deleted]

Attitudes such as yours is exactly the reason why we MAY lose the war we are currently involved in. We are today again in the midst of a war we DID NOT start... but we must finish and win ....If we do not YOUR FREEDOM TO EXPRESS YOUR {childish as far I can see]OPINION will vanish.....the studio could have been real "heavy handed" and told you at the end that the real crew of the "mary-ann" did not come home to enjoy the freedom you and I take for granted ... they were shot down and killed in 1944 by the fun loving japanese [and that my friend IS an ending full of hate}.... Oh by the way you are too sensitive .....war is ugly ,stupid ,bloody, horrible, wasteful and regrettably sometimes unavoidable... I am sure that these and millions of other brave and scared men[on both sides] would have liked to see their kids and grandkids grow up and would have prefered to die of old age in world without war.... no one hates war more the men who are killing and being killed
'

the more people I meet, the more I prefer the company of my cats



reply

[deleted]

I wouldn't call it an ending full of hate. It was made in wartime, and was a propaganda film. It has to be viewed in that context.

I would, however, call it an ending (and film) full of inaccuracies.

First of all, the way they specifically claim that Japanese civilians in Hawaii actively attacked American installations. That was blatantly false. There was no sabotage by Japanese-Americans during the Pearl Harbor attack. If anything, civilians of Japanese descent assisted the military authorities in whatever way they could. (One civilian witness to the attack, Daniel Inouye, later won the Medal of Honor in Italy, at the cost of his right arm.)

Then, it showed the B-17 being sent on to the Phillipines. Of the surviving B-17's that arrived at Hickam during the attack (several were destroyed on the ground, although the crews escaped serious injury), they were kept in Hawaii. With the Army Air Forces essentially wrecked (along with Navy and Marine Corps airfields), flyable planes were a desperately needed commodity. They were kept for searches of the ocean areas around Hawaii in an attempt to catch the retreating Japanese strike force. Again, the film shows the gross lie of the B-17 crew being attacked by Japanese civilians on other islands.

In the Phillipines, there are the scenes of John Garfield single-handedly firing a .50 caliber machine gun from the hip and shooting down a Japanese plane. There's a reason weapons of that caliber are tripod mounted. It weighs about 84 pounds. With the ammunition and vibrations from the recoil, he would have been flat on his back in about one second.

There's the bit where the crew of the "Mary-Ann" is shooting down Japanese fighters like it's a video game. They grab a gun, fire a few bursts and the Japanese fighter explodes. They turn on back and exchange wise-guy quips. There was a reason why bombers needed fighter escorts. Fighters usually made mincemeat out of unescorted bombers. A fighter could go in fast enough to evade the bomber's guns and use its longer range cannon to cut a bomber to pieces before it could come within range of the gun turrets. Plus, in real combat, targets would be flashing by VERY fast; and be much harder to hit.

Next, the scene of the Battle of the Coral Sea. That had to be one of the most glaring historical inaccuracies in the entire film. First of all, the Army Air Force played NO part in the Coral Sea. That was entirely done by the U.S. Navy. Second of all, it wasn't the grand tactical and strategic victory that seemingly turned the war around. The Coral Sea was more realistically a tactical draw, if that. (The U.S. and Japanese each lost one carrier, with another damaged. The problem was, the U.S. had far fewer to lose at this stage of the war.) It was, however, a strategic American victory, with the Japanese invasion force bound for Port Moresby (New Guinea) being turned back. Far from being a smoothly executed American slaughter of Japanese ships, it was a battle marked by blunders caused by inexperience in carrier warfare. (i.e. Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher sent his aircraft after the small carrier Shoho, and perhaps missed his chance to sink the two bigger enemy carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku.

Then, it showed the "Mary-Ann", faultlessly dropping its bombs right on the Japanese ships, sending them to the bottom. A B-17 was designed as a strategic bomber, not as an anti-shipping weapon. At Midway, B-17's attacked the Japanese fleet. Not one bomb came close, and the Japanese were not surprised. They likened the attack to trying to drop a ball on a scurrying mouse from the top of a ladder. Hitting a ship from a high-level bomber was difficult, if not impossible.

Someone mentioned that the USS Arizona was sunk by a level bomber. Yes, it was. However, the Arizona was securely stopped and anchored in Pearl Harbor. It wasn't maneuvering freely on the open sea. That makes a BIG difference.

Finally, there's the scene at the end, where the bomber crews are briefed for a mission over Tokyo. Excuse me? That sounded like it was taken from some movie about the European Theatre, where the mission is to bomb Berlin. Aside from the Doolittle Raid in April of 1942, no U.S. bombers flew over Japan until late in 1944. Before that, there were no bases that allowed American planes to reach Tokyo and make it back safely. It wasn't until the Marianas were taken that the U.S. had such bases. And what was that briefing? Clearly whoever wrote the script hadn't listened to the technical advisors about what happened in a real briefing (targets selected, weather, routes in and out, etc).

So, I didn't mind the "hate" in the film -although it's glaringly dated now. I did, however, mind the extreme historical and technical fallacies the film showed.

reply

Dear Sir
I beg to differ with you on a couple of things. My uncle was on board one of the B17s that made it to HI that day in 1941 and they were sent to the PI from there, They were told to bypass Wake and all. They landed in Midway to refuel or maybe Wake I am not sure of this but one of the two. They made it to the PI where after a few weeks they were sent to Aus where there ship was finally declared to worn out for further war use. He survived the war and came home in 45 as a Major. The second point is the 50 cal ma duece weighs 84lbs and the base plate weighs 44 lbs. The early ones and some of the early aircraft ones weighed less but they were quickly removed from service due to overheating and breakage being lite only like 45 to 55 lbs and all.No I dont think you could if you wanted to fire it like Garfield did bt the 30 cal yes if you were big enuff to do so it weighed in at 31 lbs he wasnt he was about 5ft nothing and weighed less than my dog LOL I myself have fired the M60 it weighs 24 lbs and also the BAR at 19.5 lbs from the hip and from what we used to call the John Wayne or Audie Murphy position when I was in the Army and as for the rest of it remember we were at war and till midway we were getting the hell kicked out of us and beaten at every turn till we became as Yamato feared the sleeping giant who woke up THEN WE KICKED HELL OUT OF THEM AND THE GERMANS. Just remember it is a hollywood film from the time and raised moral when we needed it most. My father was also in the war along with 7 uncles and my mother also sorry to rant but it was a film that had to be shown to help the home front

reply

I thought Air Force was great; the only propagandistic elements of it that got in the way of enjoyment for me were the depictions of Japanese civilians attacking Americans after Pearl Harbor (this never happened, to my knowledge). At least they remained hidden, if they had shown "blood-thirsty Japs" charging the airmen that might have been a bit much to take.

But Howard Hawks is a great director and the story is a finely-tuned examination of men in an increasing state of emergency. I love how the movie juxtaposes the physical journey (heading west over the Pacific) with the emotional journey (from a state of peace to a state of war), all in a tightly-wound time frame and setting.

However, there's one thing in your post which disturbs me. You say "we are today again in the midst of a war we DID NOT start". Is this yet another attempt to tie Iraq in with 9/11? This is highly dangerous revisionist history. If your point is that the current war is merely an extension of the first Gulf War (Saddam not living up to cease-fire agreement, etc.) I'd say that argument is tenuous at best. There was no pressing cause for us to invade the country and it obviously turned out to be a huge mistake. Please don't repeat the myths that the neocons try to perpetrate (even to this day). Iraq was not related to 9/11. It was a war of choice, and a war we started.

reply

iraq is related to 9/11 in that we[ most people do not want it admit it]are involved in an ongoing war between islamists on one side and "christians "and jews on the other..... this war has been going on for centuries but with the post ww2 wealth of the arabs states it has escalated. 9/11 was not the beginning of a shooting war between the two sides, but simply another BATTLE The only reason why saddam was not involved with 9/11 was because he was not invited by osama ,IF he had been needed he would have helped ,yes they hated each other but they both hated us more as did the germans and japanese who would have eventually fought each other had they beaten the allies.... you can also say the same about no hitler and pearl harbour conection[i'm sure he was pleased] but germany never attacked American assets openly til after 12/7/41. the sooner we realize that THIS WAR IS A RELIGOUS WAR NOT ABOUT OIL the sooner we can fight it as needed... granted iraq was a mistake at THIS time not because it was unnessacery but because we were not prepared to win since U.S. IS LED BY AN INCOMPENTENT BOOB... war is ugly and should be fought quick and hard not slow and with *beep* rules of engagement....this war is simply about the moslem desire to convert the world and the western desire not to be dominated

the more people I meet, the more I prefer the company of my cats



reply

Dude, understand this: The Japanese attacked without warning, without a formal declaration of war and on a Sunday. When this film was released, Pearl Harbor was less than two years old. I had a neighbor who hated Japanese right up til his death in 1976. People wanted payback, even if only in a movie.

This was a propaganda film, and truth was pretty much ignored.

And yes, B-17s vs ships under way usually ended with nothing more than big splashe. How heroic would it be if the "mary Ann" missed?

Remember who it was made for.

reply