This was on TCM once but I missed the beginning and had to leave before it ended so I didn't see much of it. I understand it was filmed with two different endings, one version for release in the US and one for Japanese audiences. Both are supposedly available now, I guess on the DVD release.

And yes, part of the "impact" of the story is supposed to come from the fact that the two men speak different languages and can't really communicate with each other verbally. So leaving the subtitles off (for someone who understands only one of the languages involved) would probably make it a more interesting experience the first time around.

In fact, the British attempted an offensive into Arakan in 1942 and early 1943 which failed miserably. The British army in Burma was simply incapable of conducting major offensive operations until the Japanese were decisively defeated at Imphal and Kohima.

And China. It seems like everyone is so keen on not counting China in the PTO, though it was practically the cause of the entire Pacific War.

At first I thought you were talking about None but the Brave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_But_the_Brave

I think the point was why the coverage of WW2 ETO in books, games, movies dwarfs the PTO.

I think it is fair to say that for the UK, France, USSR, Netherlands, the Pacific Theatre was of minor importance compared to the ETO.

For the US, it was of more importance since they were doing the bulk of the fighting, although I know that at one point in mid-42, the US had calculated that it was devoting only 15% of its overall resources to the PTO, although that was subsequently increased.

The invasion of Guadalcanal was so short of everything that it was dubbed "Operation Shoestring".

To be honest I have just recently, in the last year or so, started to focus on the PTO, and the CBI (China Burma India Theater), after meeting a gentleman who served in both theaters during WWII. B-24 crew.

His stories are intriguing and perilous.

The last battle of WW2, was in the pacific.
The war began here before Europe, and it continued after Europe. Just FYI.

Since things have to be "dramatic" for some of you people to appreciate and understand.... enjoy:

Shootout: Okinawa, The Last Battle of WWII
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZrYWhhMNKo
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9m3RMgLizQ
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxDYSFvE0Jw
part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzyEI1ALGk0
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_vhKYQQU8Q

Actually I've seen it explained. The original script had a rather grim ending. Lee Marvin didn't like it, so they rewrote the ending to be more easygoing. The director didn't like it and edited a new ending which is the one that was shown in the theaters. The original filmed ending is the alternate one on the video, and has an unfinished sound track. The original grim script ending was never filmed.

Who says the PTO wasn't dramatic? I thought it had the most drama. In Europe we had a clash of steel and flesh, but in the Pacific the US and Japan were having a clash of ideologies. There were kamikaze pilots and suicidal civilians on one side, and the most individualistic nation in the world on the other. I'll never forget one documentary I saw where an American gunner was shooting down a kamikaze; he hit the plane and it started to fall, but instead of looking for a new target the gunner kept shooting at the plane as it fell, then kept shooting at the spot on the ocean where it landed... he just wouldn't stop shooting that thing, even long after it had stopped being threat. Meanwhile, the narrator was explaining the psychological impact that kamikaze pilots had on American crews.

Now contrast that with the nations of Europe, who are all so similar and all so used to fighting each other that opposing armies have been known to put down their guns on Christmas Day and play football.

Are you quite certain you're talking about WWII rather than WWI?

The war in Europe was an ideological war. The war in the Pacific was a resource war...

And I'll never forget an interview I saw of a US sailor who had lived through several weeks of these attacks.
In the middle of one of these kamikaze attacks, one of his shipmates just stood up, said "Boy, it's hot today", and walked off the side of the ship. They never saw him again.
Just couldn't take any more I guess.

Seeing that interview really sent shivers down my spine.

No need to get snooty. Yes, it was in WW1 that at least one football match took place between the trenches in France, but I thought it was a good example of how similar Europeans are (that single example demonstrates same religion and same sport interests, but the similarities go much further than that).

You say WW2 in Europe was an ideological war? Based on what? The Germans had a go at building an empire, just like the British and French and Austro-Hungarians did. Nothing new in that.

Reading that post sent a chill down mine.

The people of Nanking would disagree.

That much is certainly true. The Japanese philosophy of society, the individual's place in that society, and how war was viewed were very different than it was in western societies. The Germans were dangerous enemies, but understandable in the western sense. A surrounded German would surrender, as any of his other western counterparts. The Japanese, by the same standards, were wholly unpredictable; a surrounded Japanese soldier might surrender, or he might kill himself, or he might blow himself, and everyone in his immediate vicinity to pieces. As you and others have also alluded, a Japanese pilot might strafe you with machine gun fire, drop bombs or torpedos, or fly his plane directly into your ship. I imagine that it is quite unnerving to fight an enemy whose philosophy is so alien to your own.

So many of the stories you hear from vets of the Pacific theater are just downright scary. It's amazing, the things they pulled through. :nope:

Where we live we have quite a few former aviators and marines (NAS Corpus Christi was at one point the largest training facility in the world for naval aviatiors during WWII), not to mention the relatives on my dad's side who served. (Once great-uncle was part of the first waves of Marines on Iwo Jimo) And my mom's side of the family is mainly from the Philippines, so I've always been interested in that area of the war.

My point exactly. :salute:

Austraila, New Zealand, and Canada participated on the Allied Side.

Siam on the Japanese side.

The UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) wasn't defeated until 1956!

The UPA also has the distinction of being at war with both the Axis and Allies at the same time.


The Cane Mutiny

:03:

Ah, I see. You refer to the different side's ideologies effecting how they fought, while I was referring to the reasons behind the war itself.

Japan attacked the Western Allies in order to obtain resources so it can continue it's invasion of China, not because it's ideology demanded it attack them. Germany's invasion of Poland and later Russia was quite clearly launched with the intentions of fulfilling the ideological wishes of the Nazis (Among other things).

good one, loved Bogie in that.

In fact, I've seen the movie a while ago and loved it. Then I read the book and liked it even more...