No argument there. When my father was young he worked as an apprentice machinist with an old WWI vet, who said the real reason that war ended was because masses of men on both sides were dropping dead in the trenches every single day from the Spanish Flu.
How that equated into German surrender I haven't figured-out, but it seems that the allies are pretty clearly far from 'the good guys' in either World War when one digs beneath the surface history we are given.
Then, if you look beneath that, you get the Spanish Flu as an early dabbling of the U.S. into a biowarfare strain that escaped and went wildly off the rails.
My original question on this movie was poorly framed it seems - I guess I was wondering if this was just a miserable piece of propaganda with costumes, or if some attempt was made to humanize the 'enemy' and show some semblance of reality on both sides?
I mean, in a lot of ways, Saving Private Ryan just didn't do it for me at all - just more propaganda.
But, if I remember correctly, the movie Gallipoli with Mel Gibson seemed to do an excellent job of showing both sides between the Turks/Germans contrasted with the Australians.
Concerning WWII, 'The Forgotten Soldier' is a book concerning the experiences of a soldier in the German Wehrmacht, and was a real eye opener for me compared to the crap we've been fed - great book. Not only that, but it convinced me that what passes for a public education system in this country is nothing more than a sewer.
reply
share
TandyMan (10367)
4 years ago
My feel from the trailer was this was gonna be fairly sensationalized and seen from the perspective of a single soldier. A lot like Saving Private Ryan maybe. And a fictitious story set against the backdrop of documented events.
reply
share
Mrmojo4700 (20448)
4 years ago
I’m pretty sure The Forgotten Soldier was a story of one man’s experience on the Eastern front if I remember correctly. Somewhere around fifteen years ago I was reading everything WWII I could get my hands on and I do remember that book standing out as one of the only ones I’ve read telling a story from the common German soldiers prospective.
reply
share
[deleted]
4 years ago
That's exactly what it was. It was the first WWII book I'd read that gave insight into the mind of the common German Soldier in the Wehrmacht. For me, it humanized them. Until that time, I was brainwashed like everyone else with 'Muh Nazi's Evil' and 'Muh Holocaust'.
It was to WWII what 'All Quiet on the Western Front' what to WWI.
reply
share
Mrmojo4700 (20448)
4 years ago
At some point I switched to only reading Pacific Theater. I also only read a couple of books told from Japanese perspective.
reply
share
Luis (187)
4 years ago
Whether the WWII German soldier was a member of the Nazi party or not, when the name of Germany during WW II was Nazi Germany (English name) or German Reich (German name), the common soldier, airman, and sailor were supporting the Nazi Party control. Therefore they are to be vilified as well.
reply
share
[deleted]
4 years ago
. . . the common soldier, airman, and sailor were supporting the Nazi Party control. Therefore they are to be vilified as well.
They should only be vilified provided one is dumb enough to believe the propaganda that passes for history the world over.
By your logic, we could say the same about Americans, and the many foreign adventures America has had the past 130 years.
reply
share
Luis (187)
4 years ago
The only problem to your "logic" or lack of it is that American soldiers act once others have fired first.
reply
share
Strazdas (2328)
4 years ago
If you have a choice of being a soldier or your family going to concentration camp im sure you would quickly start supporting the Nazi Party as well.
reply
share
liscarkat (16543)
4 years ago
"Then, if you look beneath that, you get the Spanish Flu as an early dabbling of the U.S. into a biowarfare strain that escaped and went wildly off the rails."
Sorry, cupcake, but your bizarre and idiotic conspiracy theories and clueless delusions about who the "bad guys" were in either world war prove your complete lack of education in history. No country's actions are perfect, but it's clear to anyone with a fully functioning brain the Germany (twice) and Japan were the instigators and aggressors and had to be stopped. It looks like you read a lot of fringe junk and are not bright enough to dismiss it as the work of loonies.
reply
share
[deleted]
4 years ago
I'm afraid not - it's the sad reaction of brainwashed folks like yourself to hearing the other side of the equation, that the new information creates internal conflict because the worldview on which you base your identity is being challenged . . . and you lose your shit.
Japanese aggression against the U.S. was due to U.S. embargoes and asset freezes, specifically oil embargoes.
Do you really think a battlegroup of ~60 fucking warships traveling at 15 knots just managed to 'sneak-up' on Pearl Harbor undetected??? There was an existing war in the Pacific, and tensions between the U.S. and Japan were already running high in early 1941. Military air patrols would have been run in Hawaii all the fucking time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
Here's an introductory Wiki article on propaganda:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
Jesus, wake the F! up, your ignorance or lack of critical thinking skills is not another's 'conspiracy theory'.
reply
share
JepGambardella (466)
4 years ago
There was a very good reason for the US embargo against Japan - Japan had invaded China and was committing all kinds of atrocities there.
reply
share
Strazdas (2328)
4 years ago
Yes, they were competing with the brits and therefore had to be stopped.
reply
share
JepGambardella (466)
4 years ago
Was it hypocritical of western powers to embargo Japan for doing something that they themselves had been doing in other parts of Asia for quite some time? Absolutely! Does it mean that they should have allowed Japan to do whatever they wanted in China without consequence? Not so clear-cut, is it?
reply
share
Luis (187)
4 years ago
I mean, in a lot of ways, Saving Private Ryan just didn't do it for me at all - just more propaganda.
Ha ha ha HA HA HA! Propaganda is made by the Government. Saving Private Ryan was made by a PRIVATE entity. Not by the Government. So you are not only a moron, but an imbecile!
reply
share
[deleted]
4 years ago
Educate yourself Dumbass, quit embarrassing yourself.
You can start here:
https://hazlitt.net/feature/hollywood-and-wwii-kings-propaganda
By the way, Top Gun . . . a Navy recruiting film.
'The Guardian' with Kevin Costner . . . a Coast Guard recruiting film.
The list goes on and on - the government's worked with Hollywood and other media channels from the very beginning.
reply
share
Luis (187)
4 years ago
Again, more stupidity on your part. You cannot say Top Gun, The Guardian, or that all films from Hollywood are propaganda. The difference from Five Came Back, and why you cannot use that connection is simple.
Five Came Back depicts five directors which were recruited and paid by the US Government to produce films for the war effort, depicting the US as victorious, and the other side as evil. That is why the movies produced by those five during the Second World War is considered propaganda.
When you can show me that Top Gun was paid by the US Navy, that The Guardian was paid by the Coast Guard to represent them, then you can say "it is propaganda." But the directors and producers of these two films said "I think there are people that would like a film about the Navy... or The Coast Guard." So they will see these movies. So they will receive $100,000 for every $100 they invest. Not propaganda.
Again, you are a MORON and an IMBECILE! You need more education. How old are you? Not very, right?
reply
share
[deleted]
4 years ago
This article from the Washington Post explains exactly how the Pentagon exchanges millions (if not 10's of millions) of dollars in military man-hour & hardware support, and access to 'billion dollar military props', for 'Pentagon Creative Input' on scripts & studio productions.
It goes so far to say, that without Pentagon support, military movies just don't get made.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/25-years-later-remembering-how-top-gun-changed-americas-feelings-about-war/2011/08/15/gIQAU6qJgJ_story.html
It's called PROPGANDA, Luis, it's nothing new, government's have been partnering with media channels for centuries, get over it.
reply
share
Luis (187)
4 years ago
It is propaganda ONLY IF THE GOVERNMENT PUSHES IT!
How is 1917 paid by the government?
If it is made or created by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE it is NOT PROPAGANDA!
reply
share
Strazdas (2328)
4 years ago
"It is propaganda ONLY IF THE GOVERNMENT PUSHES IT! "
It amazes you are capable of tying your shoes with intelligence like that.
reply
share
Luis (187)
4 years ago
When you start insulting or hurl personal attacks, you have lost the argument. So, poor loser, what does it feel? Or rather, HOW do you feel?
reply
share
Strazdas (2328)
4 years ago
Theres nothing to loose, you had made an illustriuosly stupid claim that needs no refutation.
reply
share
Strazdas (2328)
4 years ago
Wow. What a completely ludicrous proposal. Propaganda can be created by anyone, even you and me. It has nothing to do with being made by government. In fact during the Vietnam war a lot of war movies were made with explicit intent of being war propaganda despite being made by private companies.
reply
share