I´m sick of the glorifying of the american soldiers! - Flags of Our Fathers (2006) Discussion

[–] woofagooba 17 years ago

Your NOTION of how the war was won is nothing short of laughable and not even worth debating. The fact that both the Russians and Germans lost more soldiers has NOTHING to do with winning the war and that fact should be absolutely apparent to you since you pointed out massive losses of both those sides. The Russians fought a one front war. Get your facts about WWII history straight and not from nonsense you're picking up from your Russian neighbors.

I'm pretty gd sick of living in a world that wants to minimize our contributions made to world freedom. Fact is, the Russians got a lucky break due to the starving and stuck Germans or they'd have gone right into Moscow and taken over Russia. If you want to go barking up some tree about history then you BETTER KNOW what you're talking about.

As for being sick of the movies about our WWII success, well film is a business we (America) dominates so if Norway (COUGH, and I have plenty of northern Europe in me and my wife's family comes from Norway) would like to do a film about it's war heroes step up to the plate. Nobody is making you watch this movie.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dtl1990 17 years ago

Remember, The Russians were like the Americans in the Revolution. They weren't trained very good. Their weapons weren't up to par with the americans niether. I bet you forgot to factor those in.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] teacher_tom516 17 years ago

Virtually EVERY army went into WW2 with some sort of deficiency somewhere. The British and French tanks sometimes didn't have radios and often their AT weapons weren't that good. The Germans were mostly HORSE POWERED and their tanks were actually not as powerful as the British or French ones (which lacked radios though and often had inferior armour doctrine).

Soviet Russia was actually a pioneer of blitz tactics but was set back by the great purges that virtually decapitated it and killed their 'blitzkrieg proponent' Michael Tukhachevski. Nonetheless, they were pioneers of the vertical envelopment (paratroops) and armoured warfare during the early 30s.

During the early part of the war, the frontovik was often outmaneuvered and outfought because of Stalin's own powerplays (like Hitler would do to his own troops in 1944/45 ironically) and absurd refusals to conduct 'offensive' or 'overt' acts. However even at this early stage don't forget that the Russian heavy tanks still outclassed German armour (the KV-1 and 2 were greatly feared, like the British Matilda and French Char B-1) and there was an incident where a single KV-1 held against a German advance for several hours. What let them down often was poor doctrine, not necessarily training and weapons.

The Russians built their weapons TOUGH! As mentioned the T-34 which was coming into production in 1941/42 became, hands down, the best tank of the war. The Ilyushin Stormovik was virtually a flying tank. The PPSH submachine gun was extremely sturdy under the harsh battlefield conditions of mud and snow. Even as late as the Vietnam war and beyond, the analysts would comment that while the well designed M-16 of the US Forces performed well enough, the Avtomat Kalashnikov 47 of the NVA was just sturdier and less prone to jamming.

Don't forget that American troops - like all other nations - needed a 'working up' period and would perform very poorly at their first battle againt the Germans, Kasserine Pass, before George Patton whipped them into shape for the rematch at El Guettar.

Cheers,
Tom516

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] teacher_tom516 17 years ago

"Remember, The Russians were like the Americans in the Revolution. They weren't trained very good. "

About 'the Revolution'. It's also a historical fallacy to think that the American patriots were some untrained rabble that British propaganda made them out to be. They were militia, TRAINED AND DRILLED Colonial Militia. Those boys on Lexington Green, Concord and Bunker Hill were trained in the same linear tactics (with some allowance made for local conditions, granted) as militia and volunteers in Buckinghamshire or Norfolk or Northumberland. They were ENGLISH Colonial Militia who happened to be fighting against their English/British authorities.

Also, while it's romantic to think that all Americans were sharpshooting riflemen - and a good many were - the war was not won by 'Injun Tactics' of bluff, ambush and sharpshooting but by good old linear tactics. The only way that Americans would win was by standing up to the British in an open field fight and the only way they could do that was by drilling to European standards of efficiency. This is why Baron Von Steuben is such a big deal - he was a drillmaster!

The battles of the American Revolutionary era, as in the century past and indeed the half-century afterwards, were less about killing men than about demoralizing the enemy. Despite what the movies show, musketry battles were not nearly as 'lethal' as they seemed (though there WERE instances when solid volleys 'won the day' - The British Guards winning vs the Garde Francais at Fontenoy, the 6 British and Hanoverian battalions at Minden, the volley that won Canada at Quebec) actually most of the real killing took place after one side broke and ran from demoralization. This is the reason for the pageantry, the big tall grenadier hats, the flashy costumes, the music and banners - it was to scare the bloody heck out of the enemy! Once one side broke, the cold steel (bayonets, spontoons, partizans, halberds) was free to do its work and THAT is when the slaughter began (since the Americans started the AWI without that many bayonets they were at a distinct disadvantage!).

Battles continued like this until the age of the rifled musket when suddenly scaring the enemy was not as important or efficient as actually KILLING the enemy.

Just dispelling old myths,
Tom516

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bphoff00 17 years ago

Two things:
1)Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
Thank you Patton
2) In America we watch movies about American heroes, and we should. Russia should be churning out movies about Russian heroes. They need not wait for movies like enemy at the gates.

reply

[–] DD-931 17 years ago

1: Russia signed a treaty with Germany that made them virtual partners with Germany (they divided up Poland between them) until Hitler invaded Russia in the summer of 1941. Only months before the U.S. entered the war.

2: While the Russians were collaborating with the Nazis, FDR was sending so much material support to the British in 1940 and 1941 that the German general staff several times had to talk Hitler out of declaring war on the U.S. -- which would have happened while Russia was still a treaty partner of the Germans.

3: The Russians lost so many men (although some of the "20 million" casualties mentioned were actually Russian civilians with no chance of battling the brutal German advance) because, unlike Britain and the U.S., Soviet troops were usually (especially in the first years of the war) treated as cannon fodder and totally expendable by their leaders. Ever hear of any assault by British or American forces were most of the soldiers were actually UNARMED, and had to arm themselves by picking up the weapons of dead comrades? Would never happen. Also, some of those dead were actually killed by the Soviets, usually for not following suicidal orders from their superiors. All in all, you'd have to give at least partial (I'd say 50 per cent) credit to that 20 million dead figure to Stalin, not Hitler.

4: Many people in the Soviet Union actually CELEBRATED being liberated from the Soviet tyrants that had been ruling them...until the equally brutal Nazis began killing them and rounding them up for concentration camps.

When are we going to see more movies about all THAT?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Backlot_Manager 17 years ago

NT

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DD-931 17 years ago

Your comments are interesting, Squeeth, considering how up in arms you get about slights (real and imagined) you perceive about how the British and Montgomery are judged versus the Americans and Patton.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DD-931 17 years ago

So what's your problem with pointing out the truth about the Russians in WWII? I never said they were the only ones to get their hands dirty. I'm just saying they weren't the saviors of WWII some people want to paint them as.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DD-931 17 years ago

Okay, this is starting to get silly. I think we're more on the same page than not, we're just arguing semantics now.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] teacher_tom516 17 years ago

While as nations, Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, etc. were generally against the Nazis there were many collaborators, not just Vichy but everywhere, for many different reasons. Sadly many of the bigger fish who weren't too famous - Pierre Laval or Vidkun Quisling were too famous for their own good - slipped through the cracks. I remember watching a documentary on the Railway of Death (the Bridge on the River Kwai) where they interviewed the camp commandant who was alive, well, well respected (apparently went into business post-war and didn't do too badly) and he had his own 'version' of why thousands of Allied POWs died during the war. Heavens no, it wasn't because of any brutality on my part, it was the wretched diet, which my own men had to contend with as well. We all suffered together - so said this guy who by rights should have been up against the wall.

Collaboration is a sticky issue though - check the scene in Taegukgi where the 'anti-communists' are executing 'collaborators' who apparently only signed up for the 'communist party' to get rice to feed themselves. There are many documented cases of both guerrillas and collaborators just using the war as an excuse for unsupervised atrocities and settling scores without having to answer for it afterwards. In the Philippines it got even stickier for those that MacArthur and Philippine President Quezon left behind - Quezon ordered guys like Jose P.Laurel and Jorge Vargas to stay behind and help the people, doing anything 'short of swearing allegiance to the Japanese' (which was a ridiculous and impossible order). There's a whole controversy because Laurel and Vargas were prosecuted post-war for being collaborators with the Japanese while Manuel Roxas, who was no less a part of the occupation government even if he was there 'on the sidelines' was proclaimed a hero - because he was MacArthur's buddy. But then, since they were all scions of the old rich clans which rule the country even to this day, as the Percies, Nevilles, Howards and Stanleys ruled old England they were all eventually 'rehabilitated'. Ah Philippine politics!

Poland was terribly unlucky in that respect, caught between two monstrosities. Someone should make a movie about the '44 rising - though it probably would qualify as a 'horror' movie because of the sheer viciousness of the fighting and the characters involved - Bronislav Kaminski's antipartisan brigade (RONA) and, the worst of the lot, 'Doctor' Oskar Dirlewanger's antipartisan brigade. Dirlewanger makes Ted Bundy look like a sunday school teacher. The Dirlewanger brigade, Germany's 'dirty dozen' was REALLY dirty and it was Warsaw's ill luck that they sent his riff-raff to pacify the city. The SS commander Von Dem Bach-Zelewski was so shocked by the reports of Dirlewanger and Kaminski's men's atrocities that he summoned each in turn with a view to arresting and shooting them. Kaminski got put up against the wall but (according to one source) Dirlewanger never got arrested, indeed his thugs THREATENED the SS General with their MP40's when he came to put Dirlewanger in his place.

It's perhaps small but sweet consolation that Oskar Dirlewanger was arrested just at the end of the war and (according to my readings) beaten to death by his Polish 'guards'.

Cheers AllenKr,
Tom516

reply

[–] jeanbal 17 years ago

I'm French and I'm shameful about the so called "collaboration" with the nazi regime during WWII. I just wanted to say that the majority of the people of my country were not pro-Nazis at the time. My mother, my father and my uncle have been deported because of that. Some familly friends died under torture in concentration camps. Things were not simple at the time.
But one thing is sure: some older members of the rightwing french parties of today had many german friends at the time...
Anyway, what is more important is not to tell from where the people who died to free Europe were coming from.
We just have to be gratefull - deeply gratefull!- for their sacrifice.
Heroes have no nationality. They just have a right to be honored.
Thank you for your attention.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 15 years ago

Ever hear of any assault by British or American forces were most of the soldiers were actually UNARMED, and had to arm themselves by picking up the weapons of dead comrades? Would never happen.

It didn't happen in the Red Army during World War II either.

reply

[–] nickm2 15 years ago

R011Dave:

Yeah but FRANKLY I wouldn't have wanted to be a Red Army Infantryman, in any case....

nm

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] teacher_tom516 17 years ago

Hehe... once at least before I die, that and Rorke's Drift.

I didn't know 'Revolution' was shot in Norway. The Battle of Long Island sequence was pretty good in that they showed that accurately - the real killing was after one or the other line broke.

Colonial militias were HARDLY rabble - depending of course on time spent training - but inasmuch as they were expected to protect their own against other similar units and hostile natives they wouldn't be rabble at all - generally unreliable relative to the regulars of course but not rabble.

I saw this documentary on the Boston Massacre and they showed the damage a .75 cal musket ball could do to human flesh. Not a pretty sight! Those things could deal it out in spades - a shot to the face wouldn't make a neat little hole, it would smash in the part of the face it hit and blow away the back part of the head. Now imagine that's your friend's face. Wouldn't be surprised that the colonial militia wavered.

Monmouth was a close run thing - General Charles Lee's idiotic dithering and Washington riding to rally the troops and save the day (come to think of it, that reminds me of the 'Stirling' battle scene in Braveheart!!) but I think it was the southern campaigns that showed what the militia could do - Cowpens, Guildford Courthouse, etc.

You may want to get in contact with Silverwhistle and Syntinen at the Kingdom of Heaven boards. Besides being medievalists they're fangirls of Ban Tarleton (and DEPLORE the Patriot's slandering of the 'lobsters') as well as Pat Ferguson of the famous rifle design.

Particularly on the frontier and in the south, the war was really a war between neighbors. However, there's also the contention that the 'American colonials' were really all 'Englishmen' anyway and in that great old tradition of the mother country hailing their 'wayward sons' ex post facto, there are those who think that George Washington, Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson were 'great Englishmen'.

Cheers,
Tom516

reply

[–] LesBraunstein 17 years ago

woofagooba :"I have plenty of northern Europe in me" - Ouch !
I hope you have plenty of Crisco, too !

reply

[–] Kid_Kincaid 17 years ago

her var det mye rart gitt

reply

[–] Vinny9876543210 17 years ago

So i guess not enough Americans died for them to be important... Your whole argument is stupid and stale. We also LIVE in America so most films would be targeted depict our soilders and other (english speaking) soldiers.

Also, a lot more than "50%" of the invading forces were American on D-Day. It was atleast 70%. We also supplied most of the technology and hardware.

And Iwo was in the PACIFIC not the ETO. The Pacific war was almost exclusivily fought by Americans, some british and other resistance forces.

And not once have I been told that the war was "only won because of the invasion of normandy" although many historians believe June 6,1944 was the most important date of the centrury. And rememeber, if it werent for the Allies in the West, those "50-60 divisions" would be on the eastern front, possibly pushing into Moscow.

reply

[–] Kid_Kincaid 17 years ago

tnordseth said : "Flags of our fathers seems like the same old patriotic unbalanced crap."

Uh oh, you better see it on December 26th then my friend, cause that is not true.

reply

[–] futureastronaut4 17 years ago

I don't know how many of you have read the book Flags of our Fathers by Jack Bradley's son James, but he also asserts that the Americans were not the sole reason for the victory in Europe. He says:

"Across the Atlantic, in Europe, the U.S. would be fighting in support of and with an allied force. But for years, Russian, English, and French troops would do most of the fighting and take the brunt of the beating. And it would be Stalin's troops who would really beat Hitler: seventy-five percent of the German troops who died fighting in World War II were killed by Russian troops" (Bradley page 58)

However, this movie isn't about Europe, it is about the battle for a tiny island in the Pacific, Iwo Jima. And on this note, Bradley continues:

"Against Japan, however, America would stand virtually alone in the Pacific. Japan had violated American soil, and the first and last American battles of World War II would be fought there. The Pacific War would be "America's War"" (Bradley page 58).

So, even the author of the book on which this movie is based admits that the Americans didn't win the war in Europe for all of Europe, but this movie is about the Pacific War. Is it so wrong to glorify the soldiers that were there, fighting and dying?

By the way, I highly recommend both the books Flags of our Father and Flyboys by James Bradley....

reply

[–] Theguar 17 years ago

To Vinny.

Most of the hardware, yes. The technology, not so. What of the firefly versions of the sherman, and the mullberry harbours, not least 'Hobart's funnies'?

As for the 50/50 statement, it was roughly 50% US troops on June 6th 1944. Afterwards, there were more Americans, but not on 'D-Day'.

A question to FutureAstronaut.

What of the British Empires part against the Japanese?

That may not have been stictly the pacific, but you can't ignore the forgotten army?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] goobikza 17 years ago

Thank god for the Lend Lease program.

reply

[–] tnordseth 17 years ago

Hmmm... I think there is a few australian and brits who will not agree that U.S fought by themselves in the pacific.........

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] goobikza 17 years ago

It may have escaped your notice that this film is not about the Pacific Theatre of WWII, it's about events on Iwo Jima and subsequent events inside the U.S. The war in the Pacific could not have been won without the contributions of the Australians and British (likewise, the war in Europe could not have been won without the contributions of the U.S. [not the least of which was fighting in the Pacific so the Japanese could not attack the Soviet rear])...but that's another movie, no need to hijack this one.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] teacher_tom516 17 years ago

Hehe... that's why they're 'Forgotten' :P The D-Day Dodgers song comes to mind, the song of yet another forgotten army off 'in sunny Italy'. Sure you've heard it - the part that always gets to me is the bitterly sarcastic:

On our way to Florence we had a lovely time
Ran a bus to Rimni, right through the Gothic Line
Anzio and Sangro were just names - we only went there to look for dames
The artful D-Day dodgers in Sunny Italy...

[Hair stands on end everytime]

Of course, Anzio is remembered as one of the bitterest and bloodiest battles in the ETO. Bringing the discussion back to heroes in history, it was Lady Astor (of Maltese Falcon fame, right?) who commented that the soldiers in Italy including the veteran 8th Army (who'd slogged all the way from North Africa 1940) were 'D-Day Dodgers' - avoiding the hard fighting in the Normandy hedgerows and apparently 'always drinking vino, always on a spree'. A really nice thing to say to lads who were doing some very hard fighting in some really tough terrain against a desperate foe - Salerno, Anzio, Monte Cassino give lie to that!

You're England's sweetheart, England's pride
We think your mouth's TOO BLOODY WIDE!

That sentiment's alive and well in spades in Flags of our Fathers too I think.

But for Bill Slim's 'Forgotten Army' there's no better quote then their own...

"When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say,
For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today"
Tom516

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] teacher_tom516 17 years ago

Ah! Thanks very much for setting me straight on the Astor girls. Somehow I always thought they were one in the same (duh!) - Talk about six degrees of separation, Robert Gould Shaw(!)

I read that 'The Countess' (Constance Markiewicz) fought in the Easter Rising too...

Tom516

reply

[–] cooney90 17 years ago

True, but the majority of the major battles (can't think of one that wasn't) were fought almost entirely by the Americans in the South Pacific. Australia and Britain had their armies in Europe for the most part.

reply

[–] Kid_Kincaid 17 years ago

if it hadn't been for the US and its people, we would not have all these great WW2 movies.

And come to think of it, we wouldn't have this thread in this forum right now !

reply

[–] metalhead0216 17 years ago

if 50 % wer americans that means we made up half of the allied troops more than 6 other countrys wich u named wich means we r the main reason the allied forces won without us u wer nothing the american military earned the right to be glorifyed as the greatest worriors back then and still today

reply

[–] bilgeboybob 17 years ago

I generally judge a film *after* i see it but to be honest, if this is another gung-ho flag waver- i won't bother. So guys, tell me it 'aint so- tell me that this treats it subject with the gravity it deserves!

-B-
Svetlana sucks lemons across from me

reply

[–] teacher_tom516 17 years ago

"I generally judge a film *after* i see it but to be honest, if this is another gung-ho flag waver- i won't bother. So guys, tell me it 'aint so- tell me that this treats it subject with the gravity it deserves! "

It's a 'gung-ho flag waver' LITERALLY because of the subject matter (the flag raisers of Iwo Jima). It's also a great film not so much about the battle but about the nature of heroism, the public's perception thereof and how horribly wrong we can be about the men and women who fight for our country.

Hope you like the film!
Tom516

reply

[–] Kid_Kincaid 17 years ago

But it doesn't show a Marine running around with the 'Banner' - it depicts what happened back then. Powerful film. A must see.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] teacher_tom516 17 years ago

Indeed it's probably the main reason they never went for the kill in Australia - Imperial GHQ just didn't have the resources to sustain a major campaign for Australia AND the Pacific AND China-Burma-India.

Tom516

reply

[–] iservasia 17 years ago

Boy, you sure watch too many action-hero flick with the bad guy aiming for "world domination". The only time they set a foot outside Europe is to Africa, not to conquer them but to take their oils (because at time, most African nations are still in tribe-like situation, not a nation in which we know now). And if they do hold a grip of some parts of Africa is simply because they think that their "ally" isn't capable of doing it them selves (I'm talking about Italian's fascist regime here).

And for Asia, Germany never set foot in Asia. It's Japan. Read your history book.

reply

[–] rokshok183 17 years ago

America was'nt saving Europes ass as much as it was saving its own. Had the D-Day invasion not taken place then the captured German scientists would not of been taken back to the U.S. to complete the A-Bomb. Germany would of developed it and that would meant New World Order under the Fascists.

Russia is certainly the most instrumental single nation in the downfall of Hitlers war machine, but that said it was the collaborative efforts of all nations, as well as Hitlers own decisions that brought that about. No one nation on the planet would have stopped him at that time.

But thats where the nationalistic generalising stops in this post. Some very interesting and knowledgeable posts in this thread. But even they come accross as somewhat vulger in that the thread sounds like a bunch of academics competing for a title of "Most extensive reading of war historian litreture on WW2".

Put it like this. Would you have this arguement/debate if you were all put together, in a hall full of dead veterens brought back to life to be your audience for an hour.

Summarizing their experiences, actions and most of all their SACRIFICES (Their life with their families) in terms of national representation, political decisions and military logistics. Im sure it would of got you a fist in the face.

War distilled into a concentrate is an individuals experience of wholesale MURDER in which human morality goes out the window in the necessity of atavistic survival. It's when you read biographies of those that survived the 'thick' of it, you understand why they wouldnt want to talk about it.

So long as a film is telling a story that is depicting the psychological damage of war on an individual basis, then the subject of nationality drops off, and in my mind is a film of merit, on a subject where so many have fallen short to mishape popular comprehension into such an inadequate version of what the veterans experienced and died in.

I have not seen 'Flags of our Fathers' but i intend to. I will make my judgement on its merits then. However on the topic of Hollywood misrepresenting WW2 and other history, there is undoubtedly an issue here. The dominance of Hollywood productions in the international film market is consolidated with the studios ownership of so many of the cinema chains throughout the globe. As such they control distribution and viewing for their own productions.

There is a simple answer to that if you are not american and do not wish to see 'their' versions. Dont go to the multiplex cinemas. Support independant cinemas showing world cinema productions. Increase in demand will boost world film industries leading to improved venues showing bigger, better and more expensive productions. Remember Hollywood is profit before it is pratriotic. If a foreign production will earn money at the box office they will buy the distribution rights and sell it to the viewing masses all the same.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nextlevel 17 years ago

allenkr62, Amen to that sir!

"Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies"

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Striderags2002 17 years ago

i wonder how many times ive seen this post on the various war movie boards
hell i even saw one on a board for platoon (a vietnam war movie) where We Were Soldiers was applauded for showing the french in it
hmm
at last count
it was
75,235 times someone has posted something like this
well now its 75,236
i guess

reply

[–] rokshok183 17 years ago

You took that mighty personal there AllenKR. So be it. Time is not on my side, so im not particularly concerned with grammatical errors. Im sure i'll continue with a few more in this post. As for the tone of my post, time was also an issue, so the result certainly read more like a 'lecture' than i would normally allow. But still, bypass that and i still stand by those comments.

Im sure that you have talked to more veterAns than i have. You have some very interesting posts here and you are certainly more of an authority as a WW2 historian. But i have family and friends who have put in military service in war zones and have extensively read on the subject. But im not about to claim that as any kind of pedestal for my own self representation here. I have my life experiences and they have theirs. Im just making a point about comprehension.

Which im sure having heard so many eye witness testimonies yourself, that you will understand that such a long thread about war, without addressing the base psychological impact subjected on an individual, is missing the fundamantal aspect of what War is.

Thats what the whole issue of making such a film is surely about. Shaping the comprehension accross the generation gaps to understand the experiences of those that lived it.

Regarding the Hollywood industry, i'll take your word on Jack Warner. I dont know the man so Im not trying to character assassinate him. But the mere point of this thread being started on the topic that its titled, is indicitive of widespread feeling outside the U.S. regarding the dominance of Hollywoods globalization, for products that are first and foremost designed to sell to the American market. The film industries cultural exports, have increasingly created annoyance for mis-representing world history to appease American ticket office precautions. Despite your vented post requiring me to reiterate this, im sure You know all this already. A fair point being made in countless other threads on this site.

Like i said, for those outside the U.S. who have a problem with this, the answer is to contribute to a market demand for other nations film industries if they want to see a broader perspective of storytelling on the subject. Simply condemning U.S. productions does'nt go anywhere to a solution.

On which note, nor will this post. I've spent time enough here. Answer back as you please, be it affronted, defensive, abusive, contemplative or otherwise. Considering your initial response It's likely we will agree to disagree in some manner or other. So it's all the same to me.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jude_in_darlo 16 years ago

Mmm, just a shame you're damn near illiterate...

reply

[–] jbpowell-1 17 years ago

I wish we (USA) had never gone across the Atlantic to help you retards. I've never seen a more thankless group of individuals in my life than modern European youth. Go ask your toothless old granddad what he thinks of the US. I guarantee you he's grateful. Only envy and/or jealousy could provoke a smelly-ass Eurotrash piece of *beep* like yourself to try and belittle what the US did for Europe during the first part of the 20th century. You better pray that you don't ever need our help again, Borat.

reply

[–] 0Tolerence 17 years ago

hahaha, get real. Why the hell do you think you exist? It's because of english, french and dutch people going over the north american soil. That's who you really are! Without us "eurotrash" you would not even exist to begin with. Furthermore your lack of respect for us shows your ignorance and stupidity. So i'll leave it at that for you to think about.

Good luck, you're gonna need it.