Outgunned and poorly equipped... But on the flipside I wouldn't have wanted to go up against the desperate late-war Japanese army either.

Actually there's a lot more of the romance, and a lot more of the action, and a lot more of the characterization, and a lot more of everything, and while the main plot is spot-on the background story is a lot longer. If they had filmed the book exactly it would have been five hours long and a whole lot more boring.

Book is better, but the film works better the way it is.

Herman Wouk also rewrote his novel as a stage play, and though I've never seen it the 1988 The Caine Mutiny Court Martial is supposed to be as good as the movie.

I read Wouk's "Winds of War" and "War and remembrance". Good to show the epic sweep of WW2, but overall, I find his writing a bit to soap opera-ish.

Btw, there was a real-life "caine mutiny" aboard a US ship, the USS Vance in 1965:

http://www.aspen-ridge.net/DE_R_s/US...uss_vance.html

I read War and Remembrance (Haven't read Winds of War yet, though I have it). I enjoyed it, though there are a few parts which are mighty boring and a few parts in it's description of the war itself which could've been better (But only just a few, it's mostly very accurate).

The Caine Mutiny is a very different type of book though.

"Sands of Iwo Jima"

"They Were Expendable"

"Guadalcanal Diary"

"Battlecry"

My big gripe with how ww2 is shown here in the UK can be summed up with:

1940, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, Churchill saying "we will fight them on the beaches..."

There's more to ww2 than ********** 1940!:damn::damn::damn:

I had a great-uncle at El Alamien, one on Convoy's who was killed, a grandfather in RAF Coastal Command and the other grandfather did the Murmansk run!

Very few people here know anything about the far-east because they aren't told about it. Even when they are, the fact that Imperial Colonies and Territories were involved can be viewed as turn-off because "Empire" is a dirty word at the moment.

Had to get that off my chest - it irritates me like hell.:mad:

Mike.

I actually thought of mentioning those and a few more, like Bataan, Back To Bataan, In Harm's Way, etc, but my original thought was to stick with strictly historical stuff, the ones that are almost documentaries.

Of course only Tora! Tora! Tora! fits that bill, and I've strayed a bit myself, so... :oops:

You can keep on lying about what I said and continuously re-fabricate this THING I did not say to you... as often as you like.

It was engineered by you to meet your personal aims.

You are simply bitter, hateful, and intolerant of anything relating to me and/or GWX... and your post proves it yet again.

Move on man. Move on.

Three of my family members (now all passed away) served in the PTO... to include an uncle who was rather tall for his age... who fibbed about his age to join the navy... and was on board the U.S.S. Enterprise during EVERY major engagement that vessel saw.

He was also on deck for at least one successful kamikaze strike on the Enterprise. (at Okinawa IIRC) I was maybe six years old when he told me the story... and explained what a "kamikaze" was... but as I recall it, it seemed he was involved in damage control to some capacity.

Furthermore, I served in the U.S. military myself... ready to defend against any enemy foreign or domestic.

How would it ever do me any good to denigrate either theater.

So regurgitate all you like Ducimus. The truth is still the truth no matter how much you'd like to sculpt and pervert it with textual diarrhea.

Yeah, the Japanese Army, is a whole differnt story.

I'll throw in "Objective Burma" with Errol Flynn:D

"The Thin Red Line" is one of my favorites if no-one has mentioned it yet.

I have it from Netflix right now, hoping to get to it this weekend. :yeah:

OK - as a student of history, there are reasons WHY the ETO is more often seen as the "major" area of conflict.

These are pointed out for discussion - so feel free to reasonably try and rebut them.

#1. The ETO was where the majority of Aggression against the Allied powers occured with great publicity. The invasion of Poland, France, the BoB, etc, where major news stories of the day. These occured while the PTO was a "Phony War" in many ways for the majority of the Allies - they were "minor" losses compared to the immediate "next door" threats.

#2. America in the PTO didn't get officially involved until late 41..... where the ETO was established in the Euro (and American) civilian mind since at least 1939. Yes, you had groups like the AVG fighting before Pearl, but those exploits were not "major news". Even to the Americans at the time prior to PH - the war was mainly a "European" one. After PH - that changed.

#3. Once VE day hit, the PTO was also already decided - it was a matter of time (barring a huge blunder) and there was little to nothing the Japanese could do about it. Adm. Yamato was prescient when he spoke of awakening the sleeping giant.

#4. The fact that WW1 was so recent in the civilian psycology - along with the way WW1 combat was sometimes romanticized (specifically the Air War) made the air war specifically suited to major interest for the media.

#5. Continuing this theme - Major media (and thus American Civilians) often did not see the threat the PTO held until Pearl Harbor.

#6. After PH - The west coast did not have to deal with seeing ships sunk - the East Coast had not only mandatory blackouts - but there were times you could see the war up close - watching a ship burn and sink from the beach. Thus - the Atlantic (and thus the ETO) came "home" in more ways than the PTO did (other than PH itself).

This is not to say that the PTO was easy or a "sideshow" - it definitely was not. But there are reasons why the ETO is still seen as the more "major" of the theatres. Doesn't mean that its accurate - war is hell no matter where its fought. But it is less recognized for many reasons - some of them listed above.

As shocked as the US military was on December 7, they never had the least doubt they would obliterate Japan. The guys at the sharp end didn't know this, or course, but that was absolutely the official feeling and "culture" high enough up.

There is a pre-war quote by a US admiral to the japanese ambassador (previous an admiral himself as I recall) where he said (my paraphrase): you'll might to war with us, and you'll even have some successes, but we will only get stronger and stronger, and eventually we'll destroy your country utterly.

Spot on.

I don't know if it was a sure thing for the Allies (and by Allies I mean Brito-America and not the Soviets). The Japanese controlled a large chunk of China, and all of Korea, Manchuko in the north and French Indochina (Vietnam etc) in the south. Up until the Japanese surrender the conflict was mostly a stalemate or slow Japanese advance. Even if Operation Downfall was successful (not doubt massively bloody) its very possible that the IJA would continue to fight on in China. The Russian August Storm offensive took Manchuko and and the Chinese were advancing in 1944 but that still left a huge stretch of China and most of Korea left (as the main Soviet force had yet to cross the Yalu when Japan surrendered) for the Japanese to defend. We are talking a region about the size of the Western Front in Europe.

The Soviets would have eventually overwhelmed the Japanese but the US would have to either invade from India (in to Nationalist Territory along one jungle/mountain road) or launch an amphibious invasion from the Philippines or conquered Japan (maybe invade Taiwan as a base) as the Nationalist Chinese had yet to take a coastal port. In that perspective it sort of becomes a Soviet Victory rather than an American one.