america loves their thirst for blood....if they don't like their current war they glorify a past one.

what else would you expect from a fascist rogue state but the need for more death and destruction?

Maybe just me, but I watch a lot of PBS and they have been promoting and over hyping this show for at least 3 months and I'm so sick of it, I can say the last thing I'm going to watch is this Doc, no matter how good it is.

Talk about revisionism! Here's what PBS Hosanna Burns said:

"We understand why people call it the good war because the country was more or less united, our causes were unambiguous. We didn’t debate it every night—whether we should be in or whether we shouldn’t…"

'We' didn't debate it every night? There was no isolationist party,a neat half of the people saying 'let the troublesome Europeans sort out their eternal squabbles themselves? Roosevelt didn't lie to the American people about his war aims? Churchill and his gang didn't need to conspire, to 'drag' the reluctant Yankees into the fray? The position and deposition of the Japanese fleet steaming toward Pearl Harbor wasn't known to the Deciders at the War Department?

Prior to Pearl, Roosevelt didn't send four cruisers to sashay about, just off the coast of the Japanese home islands, in a sacrificial goat operation? Really? That didn't happen, Ken?

Lucky Lindy (Charles Lindberg, now reviled along with Henry Ford as a 'fascist' of course) didn't stump tirelessly in an attempt to keep the USA out of foreign wars?

Roosevelt didn't embargo oil shipments to Japan, thereby virtually forcing the Army-ruled government of Nippon into a desperate war against the Western invader/occupier?

Why exactly was it okay for the Dutch, French, British, and U.S. Marines to invade various island peoples, and put lots of them to death (Moros=Taliban), but Tojo's invasions were demonized?

It always boils down to the same thing. 'Their' bastards are bad, 'our' bastards (like Saddam Hussein when he played ball by warring against Iran) are good.

Physically, Ken Burns is beginning to look more and more like Gerald "Magic Bullet" Posner. Gives me the willies, that does.

I cannot believe that boob asked him, "Why history?" I know FOX is as awful as it's ever been, but... oh... just shoot me.

I sort of lost interest in Ken Burns' work after he did Baseball: "A Requiem for the National Sport."

Obviously, that's a joke, but it just seemed like he used exactly the same sort of slow, mournful style and music for Baseball as The Civil War, which put me off hugely.

That said, I'm glad SOMEBODY is pointing this out--war is bad. Doesn't matter which side you're on, or what it's over, war is bad. If it happens, something has gone horribly wrong along the line.

I watched Letters From Iwo Jima last night, and it really brought that into focus--sure we have our fancy flag-raising memorial, but functionally, it was a battle in which 20,000 young Japanese men died defending a worthless chunk of rock for a lost cause because a bunch of militaristic leaders had, a decade earlier, decided that Japan should run Asia whatever the cost, and 6000 young American men died trying to capture a worthless chunk of rock in a war that was already mostly won because some higher-up decided it should be taken.

It wasn't "glorious," it wasn't "valiant," it was vicious, miserable, and largely pointless. My father was a marine in WWII, so I grew up with stories of what it was like in the Pacific instead of the John Wayne myth--endless seasickness, sleeping in holes, and standing on the deck of a ship staring down a kamikaze suicide bomber hoping that the gunners shoot it down before it hits you.

There is no "Good War". There are wars that, come a certain point in time, are essentially unavoidable, but by definition the act of sending large numbers of young people to die over a political argument is Bad.

Here's hoping Ken Burns does something to brush back a little more of the myth.

I'm watching Flags of Our Fathers tonight for the other perspective on the same event.

Ken Burns specializes is populist revisionist garbage. He did it with the Civil War as well. His documentaries remind me of a Bing Crosby Bob Hope road movie.

Can i wax poetic? >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE1d96oe3w !!!!!!!

Some would argue that WWII was a good war because each element of the overall war had closure - in Europe, the Pacific etc. I would argue we are fighting WWII to this day. Every conflict from Korea to the cold war to Vietnam to the wars in SW asia to the inevitable conflicts in the Orient - Korea and China - are continuations of WWII. In fact, some can be traced back to WWI.

Doesnt look like Burns gets it as he appears to be dealing with WWII atomically - as if it were in isolation of what preceded and followed it. (That is speculation as I only have promo's and interviews at this point to go on).

Lemme try that again!!! Click here instead.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJTXmBuRR6w

Westclox @ 6:

Talk about revisionism! Here's what PBS Hosanna Burns said:

"We understand why people call it the good war because the country was more or less united, our causes were unambiguous. We didn’t debate it every night—whether we should be in or whether we shouldn’t…"

'We' didn't debate it every night? There was no isolationist party,a neat half of the people saying 'let the troublesome Europeans sort out their eternal squabbles themselves? Roosevelt didn't lie to the American people about his war aims? Churchill and his gang didn't need to conspire, to 'drag' the reluctant Yankees into the fray? The position and deposition of the Japanese fleet steaming toward Pearl Harbor wasn't known to the Deciders at the War Department?

Prior to Pearl, Roosevelt didn't send four cruisers to sashay about, just off the coast of the Japanese home islands, in a sacrificial goat operation? Really? That didn't happen, Ken?

Lucky Lindy (Charles Lindberg, now reviled along with Henry Ford as a 'fascist' of course) didn't stump tirelessly in an attempt to keep the USA out of foreign wars?

Roosevelt didn't embargo oil shipments to Japan, thereby virtually forcing the Army-ruled government of Nippon into a desperate war against the Western invader/occupier?

Why exactly was it okay for the Dutch, French, British, and U.S. Marines to invade various island peoples, and put lots of them to death (Moros=Taliban), but Tojo's invasions were demonized?

It always boils down to the same thing. 'Their' bastards are bad, 'our' bastards (like Saddam Hussein when he played ball by warring against Iran) are good.

Physically, Ken Burns is beginning to look more and more like Gerald "Magic Bullet" Posner. Gives me the willies, that does.

He looks more like Dave Barry to me, before he grew the facial thingy.

And, Ken Burns IMHO is like Walt Disney. Great on fantasy, short on reality.

I do remember as a youth being told by my parents stories about WW2; the callous indifference at home towards what our soldiers were enduring, people being told to go out and spend their money willy-nilly while constantly searching for the next distraction from what was going on beyond our borders, the very nebulous reasoning behind it all.

I really want people to stop talking about WW2. It has been used by too many to justify all these other shitty wars. Our involvement in WW2 was a good thing, but that doesn't excuse all the really bad things done after 1945.

rduke @ 9:

"Why so much focus on history??" - Chris Wallace asks..

Holy shit they are even dumber then I thought...

For fucks sake... History is one of the most important subjects we can discuss...

No wonder Idiocracy is our future.

Because people like Wallace think Econ 101 is their most important subject.

Reminds me of MIKE GRAVEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf9wAo_i4K0
when are we going to wakeup and recognize this man as a National Hero?

Burns is right about the black and white nature of WW2 compared to the recent wars we've fought. That is why they love to bring up WW2 all the time, to try to rub off that essence from WW2 onto our current war of aggression and occupation.

Weren't the conservatives the ones who didn't want the US involved in WW2? Yet now they claim it as their war. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

joshdavis @ 24:

rduke @ 9:

"Why so much focus on history??" - Chris Wallace asks..

Holy shit they are even dumber then I thought...

For fucks sake... History is one of the most important subjects we can discuss...

No wonder Idiocracy is our future.

Because people like Wallace think Econ 101 is their most important subject.

Which does not mean they got even close to pass that class either.

These shills are used to create their own reality, documented history is out of the realm of their control/manipulation, ergo they have no use for it. They however care deeply about myth, which they can bend and manipulate to suit their own interests as they seem fit, contradicting themselves in an almost daily basis. But since it is not reflected in the historical record, it is as if it never happened...

Ken Burns has zero credibility with me after his series on Jazz which was nothing but
a racist polemic.

raker @ 25:

This romanticization of WW2 and the so-called greatest generation is disgusting. Glorifying war and national naivete. Get ready for hour after hour of "dad never talked about the war" baloney that's meant to make us look like babies for despising meaningless death and destruction and speaking out about it. World War 2 lasted about 4 years. Bush's occupation of Iraq, four years in, is just beginning it's reign of terror. He's already told us there'll be no sailors kissing nurses in Times Square. Shame on all who glorify war.

1945 - 1939 = 6 years. It is called "world" war because there were a lot of countries other than the US involved.

What no body is pointing out is that WWII showed Americans business that they could make shitloads of money from war, thus there hasn't literally been a decade since WWII in which the US was not involved in some sort of major conflict. Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Granada, Panama, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, the war on drugs, the war on terror, etc, etc, etc. WW II also showed that America could impose its economic interest at gun point, to this day everyone knows that the US can never repay the debt it has contracted. In some sense the US acts more like a mafia than anything else, get in debt that you know you can never pay but don't give a shit because you got the big guns... and what are your debtors going to do about it?

Heck nowadays Bush can nominate people for "czar" positions, and the irony of that name just flies at supersonic speeds over the heads of most Americans.

Lone Rogue @ 33:

I hate to ignore someones actual dialogue and focus on their appearance, but... is his hair supposed to be real?

He looks like a Mii, for those who play Wii :-)

Smack_dab @ 22:

I do remember as a youth being told by my parents stories about WW2; the callous indifference at home towards what our soldiers were enduring, people being told to go out and spend their money willy-nilly while constantly searching for the next distraction from what was going on beyond our borders, the very nebulous reasoning behind it all.

Are you referring to the callous indifference that led to bond drives, victory gardens, blackouts, civil defense drills, bandage-rolling and knitting items for soldiers, civilians training as aircraft spotters, patriotic posters, and recycling of metal, cooking fat, and paper?

Which people were spending money willy-nilly when gas, food, and many other necessities were rationed?

Doctor Who @ 34:

raker @ 25:

This romanticization of WW2 and the so-called greatest generation is disgusting. Glorifying war and national naivete. Get ready for hour after hour of "dad never talked about the war" baloney that's meant to make us look like babies for despising meaningless death and destruction and speaking out about it. World War 2 lasted about 4 years. Bush's occupation of Iraq, four years in, is just beginning it's reign of terror. He's already told us there'll be no sailors kissing nurses in Times Square. Shame on all who glorify war.

1945 - 1939 = 6 years. It is called "world" war because there were a lot of countries other than the US involved.

What no body is pointing out is that WWII showed Americans business that they could make shitloads of money from war, thus there hasn't literally been a decade since WWII in which the US was not involved in some sort of major conflict. Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Granada, Panama, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, the war on drugs, the war on terror, etc, etc, etc. WW II also showed that America could impose its economic interest at gun point, to this day everyone knows that the US can never repay the debt it has contracted. In some sense the US acts more like a mafia than anything else, get in debt that you know you can never pay but don't give a shit because you got the big guns... and what are your debtors going to do about it?

Heck nowadays Bush can nominate people for "czar" positions, and the irony of that name just flies at supersonic speeds over the heads of most Americans.

(cue 40s music): "December 7, 1941, a day that will live in infamy." Franklin Roosevelt.
1946 - 1941 = 4. It wasn't a world war until it involved the world beyond Europe. Makes no difference to the point that Bush is out to destroy the world and relishes that his "war" will be more like Orwell's than like FDR and Churchill's. Eternal. Venal. Evil.

rduke @ 3:

Uh .. We were asked to kick ass ... "shop"... and "not entertain wild conspiracy theories on the internets"

Basically... Shop and don't Think. That's these guys' idea of what it means to be American. Whoever still listens to Bush and his handlers are a sick bunch of sycophants.

It’s exactly what’s happening on the streets of Baghdad.
Well, maybe there's parallels with Nazi-occupied France, but I don't think the Germans were bankrupting themselves at it.

When the generals of the US military get so pissed off that they try to assassinate Bush by setting off a bomb, then that will be another parallel to WWII.*

* A group of generals from the German army tried to kill Hitler in July, 1944.

Ken Burns (and colleagues) afforded millions of Americans an insight into the vast stakes and bloody price exacted by a Civil War that very few had ever studied, much less understood. Lest we forget, his inclusion of slavery's paramount role as the war's abiding cause is still widely denounced by fantasists.

Burns point comparing the shared sacrifice of the WW2 generation versus today's volunteer Army is irrefutable.

George Marshall's stepson was killed by a German sniper in Italy. Harry Hopkins lost a son to a banzai charge in 1944. Joe Kennedy Jr. lost his life, and his brother John barely survived his boat being sliced by a Japanese destroyer. John Warner landed on Utah beach, and George W.H. Bush flew combat missions off a carrier. George McGovern, Tom Landry, and Jimmy Stewart piloted bombers. America fought that war as a united people, across the board.

By contrast, today's army is a breed apart. We have burdened them with a tragic mission, and can lay no honest claim to sharing that burden. Only by pointing to the expenditure of our national wealth can that argument be made; but, of course, that expenditure it also theirs. Shame would prevent me from ever citing it as a bona fide example of my own sacrifice to any veteran of the Big Lie war.

Burns is no war lover. Quite the contrary. Those who reflexively, stupidly, condemn him for the subject matter of his most recent documentary are fools. They would be wise to study the incidents and realities of the respective conflicts before mouthing off about his perceived shortcomings. All the while keeping in mind that human nature does not change.

Oh Burns, be careful what you wish for - he actually thinks support for the violence would rise if sacrifice for Operation Neo-con Fuckup was shared more equally around the nation. Wallace otoh, smelt it and backed himself and his precious repug kiddies away from shared sacrifice.

colin @ 47:

I don't know why everyone is mad that Ken Burns is 'glorifying' WWII. I got the impression that he aimed to do the opposite. To me, the most intriguing part of the project is that the film does not include a single expert or historian who did not directly take part in the war. It is not about the history of WWII, nor the tactics, nor the machinery, but about human cost.

Agreed. And the last thing he said was "We need to know where we're going." How else to know where we are going, but by knowing where we came from? The soldiers from WWII are finally discussing what happened to them more than 60 years ago. It will take another 60 years for the soldiers who fought in Iraq to speak of their war. My husband has yet to speak of Viet Nam. Why do we keep making the same mistakes?

For the record, Burnsy. I was sticking up for you in my censored post.

[Keep your blouse on. I'm getting it out of the spam filter now-Sitemonitor]

How about trying to repost instead of crying out for a wahmbulence driver? (Assuming it isn't 10K long with a ten or more links using each other as reference.)

Here it is the long awaited film the people need to see... ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj1X52albSA

I can't wait to see the documentary. His docs on jazz and baseball were cool

There a lot of supporters of this war who believe that people aren't behind this war because we haven't been asked to sacrifice for the war. Maybe they think we should have ration cards for gas and food. I'm not really sure what they mean. If people were asked to sacrifice anything for George Bush's war, the troops would be home by now. People won't sacrifice for a war they don't believe in.

A lot of lives were sacrificed through the draft during the Vietnam war. That certainly didn't pull people together behind that war because it wasn't a necessary war. It isn't common sacrifice that pulls people together, it's belief in a common cause. It's certainly unreasonable to expect people to unite behind a cause that was largely manufactured through lies and deception.

Needless to say, Ken Burns lost me when told Carol Costello:

Burns: Now, you know, we are asked to sacrifice nothing. After 9/11, we were told to go shopping. In the Second World War, the leadership knew that the American people could be brought together by asking them to sacrifice. And the strange paradox is, that in shared sacrifice, we made ourselves richer, not just spiritually richer, but materially and financially richer.

And that's the secret, I think, lost on this present generation. We're all responsible. The media is responsible. The people are responsible. Our leaders are responsible. We need to remember that in shared sacrifice we do, indeed, make ourselves richer and ensure our survival as a people.

Just what is it he thinks we should sacrifice? Sheep? Goats?

Carmikl @ 62:

There a lot of supporters of this war who believe that people aren't behind this war because we haven't been asked to sacrifice for the war. Maybe they think we should have ration cards for gas and food. I'm not really sure what they mean. If people were asked to sacrifice anything for George Bush's war, the troops would be home by now. People won't sacrifice for a war they don't believe in.

A lot of lives were sacrificed through the draft during the Vietnam war. That certainly didn't pull people together behind that war because it wasn't a necessary war. It isn't common sacrifice that pulls people together, it's belief in a common cause. It's certainly unreasonable to expect people to unite behind a cause that was largely manufactured through lies and deception.

Needless to say, Ken Burns lost me when told Carol Costello:

Burns: Now, you know, we are asked to sacrifice nothing. After 9/11, we were told to go shopping. In the Second World War, the leadership knew that the American people could be brought together by asking them to sacrifice. And the strange paradox is, that in shared sacrifice, we made ourselves richer, not just spiritually richer, but materially and financially richer.

And that's the secret, I think, lost on this present generation. We're all responsible. The media is responsible. The people are responsible. Our leaders are responsible. We need to remember that in shared sacrifice we do, indeed, make ourselves richer and ensure our survival as a people.

Just what is it he thinks we should sacrifice? Sheep? Goats?

Perhaps another 60 Million. Lot of wealth got redistributed to fewer hands can create the illusion of becoming "richer"

If I'm not mistaken, Burns basically repeated the first line (in this clip around 2:20). But then he talks about how now there's a disconnect. Soldiers kill or get killed (as before). Difference now is civilian's get to stay on the sidelines.

So who is becoming richer in the Iraq war?

That second line you quoted Burns saying. I'm hoping that was just a bit of misstatement by Burns.

I think what Ken Burns missed is that people did unite after 911. They were behind our actions in Afghanistan. We did what we could for the victims of the attack, but that wasn't common sacrifice, that was belief in a common cause.

But the Bush administration exploited that common bond to get us an unnecessary war for his own reasons and that broke the common bond and betrayed our trust. Bush knew is he asked for us to sacrifice anything he would lose support so he didn't. That's why there's no draft. That's why we have huge deficits. Bush knows that if his war starts encroaching on peoples everyday lives he would lose support, so his approach has been, "You folks just get on with your lives and I'll take care of the war" He really resents it when other folks wanna get involved in his war.

some of you on this thread miss the point of what made ww2 the last good war...it wasnt just the war

citizens were asked to sacrifice....for real

food rations...gas rations...clothing rations....the vast majority of men joining up or being drafted

and there was no poliical solution to this war....the brits tried that....

and please dont forget the holocaust....both in europe and asia....or havent you heard of the japanese attrocities commited against the chinese and the koreans

Carmikl @ 66:

I think what Ken Burns missed is that people did unite after 911. They were behind our actions in Afghanistan. We did what we could for the victims of the attack, but that wasn't common sacrifice, that was belief in a common cause.

But the Bush administration exploited that common bond to get us an unnecessary war for his own reasons and that broke the common bond and betrayed our trust. Bush knew is he asked for us to sacrifice anything he would lose support so he didn't. That's why there's no draft. That's why we have huge deficits. Bush knows that if his war starts encroaching on peoples everyday lives he would lose support, so his approach has been, "You folks just get on with your lives and I'll take care of the war" He really resents it when other folks wanna get involved in his war.

That last line hit me like a ton of bricks. You've stated a fact that should be used like a sledgehammer by the Dems in congress everytime one of their resolutions gets stonewalled, if they still give a damn.

Carmikl @ 71:

Thing Fish @ 64:

Carmikl @ 62:

There a lot of supporters of this war who believe that people aren't behind this war because we haven't been asked to sacrifice for the war. Maybe they think we should have ration cards for gas and food. I'm not really sure what they mean. If people were asked to sacrifice anything for George Bush's war, the troops would be home by now. People won't sacrifice for a war they don't believe in.

A lot of lives were sacrificed through the draft during the Vietnam war. That certainly didn't pull people together behind that war because it wasn't a necessary war. It isn't common sacrifice that pulls people together, it's belief in a common cause. It's certainly unreasonable to expect people to unite behind a cause that was largely manufactured through lies and deception.

Needless to say, Ken Burns lost me when told Carol Costello:

Just what is it he thinks we should sacrifice? Sheep? Goats?

Perhaps another 60 Million. Lot of wealth got redistributed to fewer hands can create the illusion of becoming "richer"

If I'm not mistaken, Burns basically repeated the first line (in this clip around 2:20). But then he talks about how now there's a disconnect. Soldiers kill or get killed (as before). Difference now is civilian's get to stay on the sidelines.

So who is becoming richer in the Iraq war?

That second line you quoted Burns saying. I'm hoping that was just a bit of misstatement by Burns.

I think you're referring to this Line:

Burns: And there's a huge difference between then and now. Now, we have a separate military class that suffers its losses apart and alone from the rest of us. At the time of the Second World War, it touched every family on every street in America.

But he's contrasting World War II with Iraq, leaving out Vietnam. If he included Vietnam when there was still a draft, he would have to change his whole hypothesis, because we didn't have a separate military class then, and just about everyone knew someone who died in Vietnam. That shared loss did not united the people because the people did not believe it was a necessary war. Shared sacrifice doesn't necessarily unite the people. In the case of Vietnam, the common cause became to end the war.

and in three yrs of terrible fighting in korea the american people never sacrificed shit! every body was home seeing who they could screw out of a parking space!

Fox no doubt was happy to have Burns on, they love hyping the mythology of WWII more than anyone. I look foreward to seeing this series tonight (one hour to go), I have always liked Ken Burns series. I have the Civil War and Jazz on tape so I have high hopes for this. Personally I'm more into the first world war than the second, that was the war that set the tone for the entire twentieth century (and I see certain parralels in Bushes character with that of Kaiser Willhelm II, childish, petulant, wanted everything his way alone, but the Kaiser was a better statesman than Bush). I am of the opinion that Americans in general, and conservatives in particular, tend to think of WWII in overly romantic ideas, the myth of the good war. I chalk it up to the astounding success of the war, people tend to forget what war truly is and why it should be avoided. Such ideas cannot be credited to WWI, it was not as successful nor did it have as clean a resolution, indeed the so called peace forged at the end led almost directly to WWII. I think WWII is celebrated a little to much, but if people can learn from the lesons of history I'm all for that.

noticed burns never mentioned bug out doug at corregador

Carmikl @ 71:

I think you're referring to this Line:

Sorry, no, wasn't clear that I was referring to the "And that's [shared sacrifice] the secret" from his discussion with Costello. The only thing I could make of that statement was if we all support a war then we'll all come out richer.

That's only true for those lucky enough to survive, lucky enough to be on the winning side, and (in U.S.'s case), lucky enough that your homeland came out relatively unscathed.

All in all I'm not certain what Burns is trying to say from a historical perspective.

Baghdad is to the U.S.A. like Stalingrad was to Germany. Russia had an inexhastable supply of people willing to die to defend their homeland. The Middle East has an inexhaustable supply of insurgents willing to die to kick us out of Iraq. We may be able to control parts of Baghdad for a time, but it's their home ground and we're surrounded by the enemy.

I'm watching this documentary right now.
Pretty powerful images.
Not much war glorification going on, unless you choose to see it that way.

Unless you are very ignorant of the history of WWII, there is nothing of note in the first segment. The only interesting points were interviews with some soldiers that lived through it. But the historical presentation does not elevate beyond a high school class with recitation of dates and events, and virtually no analysis and a dearth of perspective.

All in all, a major snore.

The best documentary on WW2 by far is 'The World at War', produced by BBC television in the 70s. It truly is about the World War, not just the British, or American, or German/Japanese side of things. There is much material on the incredible suffering and sacrifice of the Soviet Union, which dwarfs anything the other Allies suffered. The narrator is Sir Laurence Olivier and extensive use if made of BBC archival material.

I watched it in high school and had it assigned as source material for a history course I did at university. One of the last episodes was about the Holocaust - truly horrifying. I've never forgotten some of those images.

LongTooth @ 48:

Ken Burns (and colleagues) afforded millions of Americans an insight into the vast stakes and bloody price exacted by a Civil War that very few had ever studied, much less understood. Lest we forget, his inclusion of slavery's paramount role as the war's abiding cause is still widely denounced by fantasists.

Burns point comparing the shared sacrifice of the WW2 generation versus today's volunteer Army is irrefutable.

George Marshall's stepson was killed by a German sniper in Italy. Harry Hopkins lost a son to a banzai charge in 1944. Joe Kennedy Jr. lost his life, and his brother John barely survived his boat being sliced by a Japanese destroyer. John Warner landed on Utah beach, and George W.H. Bush flew combat missions off a carrier. George McGovern, Tom Landry, and Jimmy Stewart piloted bombers. America fought that war as a united people, across the board.

By contrast, today's army is a breed apart. We have burdened them with a tragic mission, and can lay no honest claim to sharing that burden. Only by pointing to the expenditure of our national wealth can that argument be made; but, of course, that expenditure it also theirs. Shame would prevent me from ever citing it as a bona fide example of my own sacrifice to any veteran of the Big Lie war.

Burns is no war lover. Quite the contrary. Those who reflexively, stupidly, condemn him for the subject matter of his most recent documentary are fools. They would be wise to study the incidents and realities of the respective conflicts before mouthing off about his perceived shortcomings. All the while keeping in mind that human nature does not change.

Well spoken longtooth

Annoyed Canuck @ 86:

The best documentary on WW2 by far is 'The World at War', produced by BBC television in the 70s. It truly is about the World War, not just the British, or American, or German/Japanese side of things. There is much material on the incredible suffering and sacrifice of the Soviet Union, which dwarfs anything the other Allies suffered. The narrator is Sir Laurence Olivier and extensive use if made of BBC archival material.

I watched it in high school and had it assigned as source material for a history course I did at university. One of the last episodes was about the Holocaust - truly horrifying. I've never forgotten some of those images.

I agree. I enjoyed watching it back in the 70s when WWOR played them on Sundays. It's the only good and interesting TV doc on WWII to date as far as I'm concerned.

WWII is not over.

"This romanticization of WW2 and the so-called greatest generation is disgusting. Glorifying war and national naivete. Get ready for hour after hour of “dad never talked about the war” baloney that’s meant to make us look like babies for despising meaningless death and destruction and speaking out about it. World War 2 lasted about 4 years. Bush’s occupation of Iraq, four years in, is just beginning it’s reign of terror. He’s already told us there’ll be no sailors kissing nurses in Times Square. Shame on all who glorify war"

Fuck you.

" We need to know where we've been to know where were going ".

But we are led by a President and his Adm that doesn't know where they have been and Bush certainly has never been cognizant of where he goes and what he does. Top that with his republican loyalists to their political party over the nation.

We end up here..... and in a 50 foot deep hole..........with only a ten foot ladder........!

LongTooth @ 48:

Burns point comparing the shared sacrifice of the WW2 generation versus today's volunteer Army is irrefutable.

Not refuting the fact that individuals from all classes of society paid in blood and other sacrifices in WWII. Just trying to understand if Burns has any conclusions drawn from this comparison. From some of his comments I'm not certain if its 'we all need to pull together to win' or 'war's should only be fought if there's a willingness to share the load'.

If Burns' documentary is just to note this obvious difference between WWII and Iraq Now then I don't see it worth watching.

Several months ago I attended a preview showing of Burns's "The War" at a museum in San Diego. It was amazing, and Burns himself is an amazing fellow with an encyclopedic memory.

Ken Burns is a master of his art, and he has topped himself again. See his new series as soon as you can; it should be required viewing for every American.

Fuck Ken Burns. He sold out to the conservative slime.

Not just a military class, a hereditary military class, because time spent in the military is wasted for anything but getting a government job (unless you're a high-ranking officer, then you can get a quasi-government job). For most government employees, these jobs provide no connections that can be of use to them or their children outside government (or in a lot of cases, inside it). Their children are left with few options apart from the military. Some might get out of it but a damn lot won't.

When will people drop these illusions they are on some noble mission.
In WW2 the US did NOT care about the British or the Russians or the Jews.
It was about real politics. The US could care less who won, but probably asked themselves, who would be more friendly twards us? If the Nazis win, they will probably be a threat to US interests. The US stayed out of the European war for as long as they could.

This is the major difference between Germany and Iraq. Germany had a real army and was a major threat.

People would be surprised how much Nazi tech went into the US military and space program and how many Nazis worked for the US intelligence.

Not to mention BushCo's granddaddy working with the Nazis.

'Half of writing history is hiding the truth'

I guess just the topic of war is enough to set some people off. I watched the show tonight and did get any apologizing/mitigating or connecting WWII with Iraq. I am sure some in the GOP will try to tie the two together as they always do, but I saw none of that from Burns.

Burns has said that as a Democracy we lose out by having a volunteer army. He said in another interview that Iraq might not have occurred if there was not the current disconnect between the war and general society. Well duh.. We should have compulsory national service for 2 years or something for all people (similar to Germany and several other western nations) Lets see how many unjust wars we get into with 90% of the population affected in some way.

The actual documentary shows some horrific scenes and the tenor of it seemed to de-glorify war if anything. I have no idea what the rest of the series is like, but I am going to keep an open mind.. It seems to me to be a healthy thing for a progressive to have.

Skeptic @ 107: "But was WW2 was also the product of our military-industrial complex? (Is Halliburton is the new Ford, IBM, and GM?)"

NO. There was no U.S. 'military industrial complex' in the 1930s. It had yet to be established.

"The reason that we are in Iraq is because the democrats voted for the use of force and now, refuse to de-fund the war."

You're LYING. Democrats in the House voted majority NAY on the Iraq Resolution, with change of minority leader to Nancy Pelosi. In the Senate, the vote was a slight majorty YEA, nearly half the Dem Senators voting NAY. And the Iraq Resolution did not green light what Bush did -- he broke the law, he broke faith, he lied, and he did not follow the Resolution, nor did he uphold the UN mandate.

As for the funding, you have seen the voting -- blaming that on 'the Dems' is not valid. It is the fault of the complicit REPUBLICANS, and a collection of complicit DINOs in both Houses.

"Obviously George W. Bush is no FDR.... he's much more of a Harry Truman (except not quite as unpopular)."

Fuck, Boy Wonder couldn't tie Truman's shoes.

"PS - Remember that it was Truman who started the government "loyalty oaths" which led directly to McCarthyism (EO 9835)."

Blaming McCarthyism on Truman is a Republican canard. HUAC already existed, and Truman was trying to get ahead of the issue for political reasons. HUAC was McCarthy's platform, and it was already ramping up its rhetoric, followed by the 1946 elections, which the Democrats dramatically lost. Without that context, the claim about Truman is just false.

I am not lying... all I am saying is that if no DEMS voted for war funding - we wouldn't be there. Reason #1 why I am no longer a democrat. They could end this "illegal" war tomorrow if they really wanted to.

>>Blaming McCarthyism on Truman is a Republican canard.

Well, if Howard Zinn is a republican - then you might have a point. He isn't and you don't.

>>Truman was trying to get ahead of the issue for political reasons.

Well, that makes Truman's actions much worse in my book. Using the full investigative force of the US government (see J. Edgar Hoover) to weed out anyone who may have attended a party rally - for POLITICAL REASONS? Just to get "ahead of the issue?"

You should really read Executive Order #9835. It's far worse than anything GWB has done. Of course I mean domestically.

>>>HUAC was McCarthy’s platform,

Ooops - your ignorance is showing once again. Joe McCarthy was a Senator. HUAC was in the HOUSE (ummm, that's what the H stands for). Please read something.

Or take an acting class.

IndyHoosier @ 84:

Unless you are very ignorant of the history of WWII, there is nothing of note in the first segment. The only interesting points were interviews with some soldiers that lived through it. But the historical presentation does not elevate beyond a high school class with recitation of dates and events, and virtually no analysis and a dearth of perspective.

All in all, a major snore.

You miss the point of the documentary, then. Ken Burns is quoted as saying that he aims to strip away the glorifying mythology and show what 'it was like' to go to war from personal perspectives. He expressed an interesting idea; that all previous war documentaries distract us from the true horror and price of war with detailed discussions about military tactics, history of weaponry and heroic generals. There is enough work out there already done about the historical analysis.

Paul in LA @ 104

No point in whining about a bad decision.

Are you freaking kidding?

You sign up and that does whatever hoodoo it does to your head. Then they try to train your opposition out of you, and do. Then comes the moral fight, and when John Kerry came back, he helped generate the Winter Soldiers Report on US warcrimes in Vietnam.

http://lists.village.virginia......entry.html

“Future Senator John Kerry, then a decorated Lieutenant in the Naval Reserve (Inactive), while later speaking before a Senate Committee, further explained “We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....estigation

Even if you are serving under an enlistment, like Kerry, you have a moral duty to OPPOSE ILLEGAL & IMMORAL WAR, which encompasses both Vietnam and Iraq.

That's right, John Kerry spoke out after he came back from Vietnam. He didn't act out in the field. If he did he wouldn't have medals he has. He didn't lead any mutinies. He might even have gone through a court martial, been discharged dishonorably, or worse had he done so.

John Kerry did his job while he was on active duty, and he did it well. His medals prove that. After he was transferred from active duty to the inactive reserve he spoke out. He didn't complain about his service while on active duty. That's exactly the way I handled it. No difference.

as a war historian buff my view is that rooseveldt did know japan planned to attack us and encouraged it! americans at that time were strongly anti europe and anti war, rooseveldt wanted america to enter the war and goaded japan ito it, yes the japanese and germany needed stoped but lets face it it was all planned , my opinnion is we thought the japanese would attack the phillipenes not pearl harbor , thats why we reinforced the phillipines with so many troops , the naval plan was called orange it all was based on allowing japan to attack us there in the phillipines and then we would declare war on germany and japan, but they hadnt figured on the japs getting as far as pearl harbor, hence dec the 7th, i noticed that in last nights segmant the bugout from corregador by MCarthur was not mentioned by burns , my estimation of this is MCarthur left the phillipines on his own accord and was not ordered to australia by rooseveldt , he left his command to be destroyed by the japs and ran like the chickenshit he allways was, why was he not courtmarshalled ? because it would have been just one more black eye to our military, mcarthure did nothing right when he was in command of the phillipines and was a piss poor leader, and he wasnt any better in the korean war!

The Sanity Inspector @ 119:

The doco isn't bad, so far, but it's far from as groundbreaking as Burns has been making it out to be.

At least, it's nothing that you haven't seen on the History Channel a few times. Yeah, I know, often The History Channel material is slanted one way or another depending on who produced the material, but eventually you get both sides of the story. If you have a decent education going in it's pretty easy to filter out the bovine scatology. It isn't unusual for back to back programs on the History Channel to contradict each other.

tyree @ 118:

i noticed that in last nights segmant the bugout from corregador by MCarthur was not mentioned by burns , my estimation of this is MCarthur left the phillipines on his own accord and was not ordered to australia by rooseveldt , he left his command to be destroyed by the japs and ran like the chickenshit he allways was,

Are you sure you watched it? Burns had a small section on the general that seemed quite critical of him, mentioned the nickname, and yes it talked about him slipping out of the place in a gunboat.

Have no idea about him running away like a "chicken." Other than his excellent service as the leader of the occupation of Japan, I do not have a great opinion of him. From what I have read he seemed very egotistical and self inflated. However with his "lead from the front" concept, I also read he was constantly getting into trouble for being too close to the action. That does not fit my definition of "chicken" IMO.

anon @ 16:

Some would argue that WWII was a good war because each element of the overall war had closure - in Europe, the Pacific etc. I would argue we are fighting WWII to this day. Every conflict from Korea to the cold war to Vietnam to the wars in SW asia to the inevitable conflicts in the Orient - Korea and China - are continuations of WWII. In fact, some can be traced back to WWI.

Doesnt look like Burns gets it as he appears to be dealing with WWII atomically - as if it were in isolation of what preceded and followed it. (That is speculation as I only have promo's and interviews at this point to go on).

----------------------------------
why stop there?
ww2 was a direct result of ww1 not being 'finished'. partly because of the reparations that germany had to pay and partly for the usual reasons--lust for power, nationalism and a bunch of other ugly human traits.

To read an excellent and insightful review on the series, that is not the usual PBS stroke-job, check out Beverly Gage’s review of Burns’ epic in Slate –

I read the review, and found it not really that critical. It stresses that Burns focuses on the emotion of history rather than the dates or showing a panel of historians. *shrug* I guess the question of "is it great history" is valid. It is a series of emotional stories from real people. It seems quite fascinating to me, but then I have read a lot of historical books, taken classes on the time etc. etc., and do not really require more pure date-focused history to get something out of this. Enjoy or do not enjoy.. your call.

As for the towns being rose colored, and not showing the desperation of the tail end of the great depression?? These people were kids at that time and the reviewer finds their small time memories to be unrealistic? Burns could have interviewed an adult transient of the time, but hmm oh yeah they are dead. I guess I just don't see that the series itself is whitewashing anything. I realize that when someone is looking back at their childhood they may have idealized things a bit and I factor that in. Didn't we all have grandparents?

Hey A$$ hole it was a good war , because we got rid of a mean ass dictator who wanted to rule the word. Hitler and G. W Bush they are just alike in many ways, the only difference is Hitler was a brave solider and Bush is a COWARD

Carmikl @ 116:

That's right, John Kerry spoke out after he came back from Vietnam. He didn't act out in the field. If he did he wouldn't have medals he has. He didn't lead any mutinies. He might even have gone through a court martial, been discharged dishonorably, or worse had he done so."

The point was that your claim that volunteer soldiers should just accept their agreement as sufficient cause to participate in illegal actions is false. As it is not generally possible to refuse orders in the military, that then involves OUTING THE CRIMES publically once that's possible.

The idea that volunteering closes out your moral duties is false.

Carmikl @ 120: "Yeah, I know, often The History Channel material is slanted one way or another depending on who produced the material, but eventually you get both sides of the story."

Now you out yourself. The History Channel is a rightwing front, not a fair and balanced documentarian. They lie NIGHTLY to Americans, on key issues, and NEVER reverse their pattern.

If you get your history from History Channel, you are a walking lie.

tyree @ 118: "as a war historian buff my view is that rooseveldt did know japan planned to attack us and encouraged it!"

You hold that view without a single qualified historian agreeing with you.

There is ZERO evidence that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, or that FDR did anything to 'encourage it.'

FDR cut off Japan's supply of iron ore, in the effort to stem the tide of Japanese aggression. That action was not 'enouraging an attack,' it was attempting to control an aggressor WITHOUT fighting.

Paul in LA @ 130:

Carmikl @ 116:

That's right, John Kerry spoke out after he came back from Vietnam. He didn't act out in the field. If he did he wouldn't have medals he has. He didn't lead any mutinies. He might even have gone through a court martial, been discharged dishonorably, or worse had he done so."

The point was that your claim that volunteer soldiers should just accept their agreement as sufficient cause to participate in illegal actions is false. As it is not generally possible to refuse orders in the military, that then involves OUTING THE CRIMES publically once that's possible.

The idea that volunteering closes out your moral duties is false.

Once again you missed the point. An person on active duty in the military doesn't have a lot of options. John Kerry new that. Everyone on active duty knows that.

that then involves OUTING THE CRIMES publically once that's possible.

And that is after the individual is no longer on active duty. That was true for John Kerry. That was true for me. And that will probably be true of a lot of soldiers in Iraq now.

Now why don't you post something original and quit trying to pick and argument with everyone?

tyree @ 137:

Paul in LA @ 134:

tyree @ 118: "as a war historian buff my view is that rooseveldt did know japan planned to attack us and encouraged it!"

You hold that view without a single qualified historian agreeing with you.

There is ZERO evidence that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, or that FDR did anything to 'encourage it.'

FDR cut off Japan's supply of iron ore, in the effort to stem the tide of Japanese aggression. That action was not 'enouraging an attack,' it was attempting to control an aggressor WITHOUT fighting.

wich qualified historians are you refering too?thier are historieans who hold the same thinking as i do, you just never read them!

he allso cut off the oil we sold japan and implaced an imbargo with the other countrys like indonisha borneo no rubber , and you think we didnt goad japan , he he get real

tyree @ 136:

he allso cut off the oil we sold japan and implaced an imbargo with the other countrys like indonisha borneo no rubber , and you think we didnt goad japan , he he get real

Holy cow, you are sounding like a serious idiot. Japan at the time was in the midst of a brutal occupation of China and Korea, and replacing the bad European colonial governments with even worse Japanese military ones. If Roosevelt didn't embargo the oil and rubber, you'd be complaining now about how the US government and "military-industrial complex" was complicit in Japanese atrocities, just like people have been saying they were with Germany.

tyree @ 137: "wich qualified historians are you refering too?thier are historieans who hold the same thinking as i do, you just never read them!"

Name one. There are pseudo-historians who have bought into that idea, but the mainstream of historical interpretation does not consider there to be ANY evidence of the claim. It is, in other words, a hypothesis without factual basis.

tyree @ 139: what would you have done if you were the japs , give up thier conquest of china, never hoppen!"

So you believe that the US had a national defense duty to continue to arm and supply the Japanese imperialism.

Pearl Harbor pretty much proved FDR was right to cut off their supplies.

Paul in LA @ 141:

Carmikl @ 136:

And that is after the individual is no longer on active duty. That was true for John Kerry. That was true for me. And that will probably be true of a lot of soldiers in Iraq now.

Your suggestion that soldiers who volunteer have to accept illegal orders is false.

First of all, show me where I said that they had to accept illegal orders. They don't have to accept them, but the consequences of not obeying orders is severe, and if you choose to take such a stand, you better make sure it's worth it.

Clearly your favorite example, John Kerry, never saw anything that occurred when he was on active duty was worth taking that stand, so he waited until he was off active duty.

The line from my previous post that seems to have thrown you into such a dither, "No point in whining about a bad decision." had to do with the unfortunate decision to enlist, and nothing else.

To whoever said MacArthur was a "chickenshit" who left Corregidor on his own accord: he not only had to be directly ordered out by the President, even after that his staff had to convince him to follow FDR's orders. Where the movie attempts to defame him is by suggesting he lied to his men that reinforcments were on the way, when he was just repeating what he'd been told by FDR, who continued to send aid to Europe at the expense of the Philippines. This is documented in four MacArthur bios I've read, which you would know if you actually read instead of repeating canards about one of America's greatest soldiers. As for being a "piss poor leader," he lost fewer men during the time he evacuated Corregidor until the end of the war than the Allies lost in the entire Battle of the Bulge, while convering more enemy territory than any leader since Ghenghis Khan.