Comments on: Inglorious Basterds http://www.p65.sg/2009/09/inglorious-basterds/ It's where we talk Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:59:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: TC http://www.p65.sg/2009/09/inglorious-basterds/comment-page-1/#comment-1176 TC Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:00:39 +0000 http://p65.sg/newp65/?p=256#comment-1176 @Fredric: Sorry for the extended absence, but on re-visiting this site again, saw you reply above. Anyway, we can agree to disagree here, but I would like to clear one or two points about the eastern theatre of operations during WWII. Russian equipment during WWII was not inferior to German production types, but early on in the war, the Germans did a more astute job of applying them effectively in the field. Later Russian production types during the war was bascially unsurpassed in the areas of armor and artillery, and it had a direct bearing on the march to Berlin. Training-wise, everyone was a generation behind the German, but by late 1943, everyone (Russians, Americans, Brits etc.) picked up on the German fighting doctrines, and were actually better at it than the Germans themselves! As for the "scant regard" for human lives, I would like to caution you on buying that racist crap from British and American media, no one wanted to die (maybe except for the Japanese kamikaze pilots), and the same nonsense they sprouted about the Russians, they did for the Chinese, the Vietnamese and any non-white fighting force and leadership worldwide. They're saying the same about China's government now, like GW, Cheney's and even Barry's stop-loss orders for US field forces are such a glorifying example of western regard for human lives, even those on THEIR end! Forget about it, English-written media about the war is so slanted its just lame. As for the US now, its not entirely GW's fault alone for all the rubbish that has transpired. True, he played a front office role in it, but guys like Cheney, Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, Pipes, Krauthammer, Libby and Rice were all part of the unilateral movement that brought the US and the world to where it is now. The media was basically behind them (no one wanted to be left out of the "patriotic" bandwagon!), and IMHO, the US has basically lost the sole lead in global affairs, and it WILL have to share central stage with China in a matter of years (no, not decades!). The way I look at it, the wars are now a joke, its just a meatgrinder for troops and taliban alike to test their mettle and nerves in, and the real action is on Wall Street, Shanghai/HK and to a lesser extent London. Barry can push all the re-set buttons he wants, but it won't change the rise of China, Russia, India or even Brazil (IF they get their act together and implement some desperately needed land reform policies). Hope to see you later, Have a good one. @Fredric:
Sorry for the extended absence, but on re-visiting this site again, saw you reply above. Anyway, we can agree to disagree here, but I would like to clear one or two points about the eastern theatre of operations during WWII. Russian equipment during WWII was not inferior to German production types, but early on in the war, the Germans did a more astute job of applying them effectively in the field. Later Russian production types during the war was bascially unsurpassed in the areas of armor and artillery, and it had a direct bearing on the march to Berlin. Training-wise, everyone was a generation behind the German, but by late 1943, everyone (Russians, Americans, Brits etc.) picked up on the German fighting doctrines, and were actually better at it than the Germans themselves! As for the “scant regard” for human lives, I would like to caution you on buying that racist crap from British and American media, no one wanted to die (maybe except for the Japanese kamikaze pilots), and the same nonsense they sprouted about the Russians, they did for the Chinese, the Vietnamese and any non-white fighting force and leadership worldwide. They’re saying the same about China’s government now, like GW, Cheney’s and even Barry’s stop-loss orders for US field forces are such a glorifying example of western regard for human lives, even those on THEIR end! Forget about it, English-written media about the war is so slanted its just lame.
As for the US now, its not entirely GW’s fault alone for all the rubbish that has transpired. True, he played a front office role in it, but guys like Cheney, Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, Pipes, Krauthammer, Libby and Rice were all part of the unilateral movement that brought the US and the world to where it is now. The media was basically behind them (no one wanted to be left out of the “patriotic” bandwagon!), and IMHO, the US has basically lost the sole lead in global affairs, and it WILL have to share central stage with China in a matter of years (no, not decades!). The way I look at it, the wars are now a joke, its just a meatgrinder for troops and taliban alike to test their mettle and nerves in, and the real action is on Wall Street, Shanghai/HK and to a lesser extent London. Barry can push all the re-set buttons he wants, but it won’t change the rise of China, Russia, India or even Brazil (IF they get their act together and implement some desperately needed land reform policies).
Hope to see you later, Have a good one.

]]> By: Fredric Fanthome http://www.p65.sg/2009/09/inglorious-basterds/comment-page-1/#comment-631 Fredric Fanthome Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:25:08 +0000 http://p65.sg/newp65/?p=256#comment-631 @TC A lot of propaganda finds its way into texts when it comes to war histories, but I suppose we have to agree to disagree on this subject. While I am not an authority on the European theatre during WWII, I find it difficult to accept that German industrial production was higher (let alone exponentially higher) in 1944 compared to 1942, given that the country was by then on the brink of collapse and surrendered in May 1945. I am certainly not disparaging the Russian contribution to the war (I don't think any serious student of military history would do so), and I believe it was instrumental in forcing the endgame, but most of the Russian casualties were because of the Russian’s far poorer level of equipment, training, and their scant regard for the lives of their soldiers compared to the much better trained and armed Wermacht. It was not because they were fighting harder than the Americans and Allies on the Western Front. (I absolutely do not agree with Patton's statement the Allies "toured the continent with an army". Patton was a good commander but was known for shooting his mouth off often very inappropriately and I would take anything he said with a ton of salt.) Further, the war on the Eastern front was largely fought on Russian soil and ran over very harsh winters which obviously meant huge numbers of Russian civilian casualties . The number of casualties one suffers does not say anything about contribution to the enemy’s downfall. A clear example is that China’s 12 million dead – if your figures are correct – did not in any way contribute to the Japanese defeat in WWII. It is unfortunate that they died, but the fact is that their deaths did not inflict the slightest damage on Japan. It was the Americans with far lower casualties that inflicted defeat on Japan. I don’t think you can use casualty figures as a measure of contribution to war effort. It is a measure of the war suffering. On the current situation with the USA stuck in two unwinnable “wars”, I think we all know that it can be traced back to just one individual, who somehow, without being qualified to lead more than a minor league baseball team, somehow got himself elected commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military force. The current US administration now has to get itself out of this mess. The media certainly reported on the “wars” but I do not think they “fueled” it. That the USA got into them is pretty much due to one man’s inability to think beyond a kinder-garden level of sophistication on “good” and “evil”. I do believe that going forward – especially with regard to the PRC and Russia, the government of the USA will be more intelligent in its approach. @TC

A lot of propaganda finds its way into texts when it comes to war histories, but I suppose we have to agree to disagree on this subject. While I am not an authority on the European theatre during WWII, I find it difficult to accept that German industrial production was higher (let alone exponentially higher) in 1944 compared to 1942, given that the country was by then on the brink of collapse and surrendered in May 1945.

I am certainly not disparaging the Russian contribution to the war (I don’t think any serious student of military history would do so), and I believe it was instrumental in forcing the endgame, but most of the Russian casualties were because of the Russian’s far poorer level of equipment, training, and their scant regard for the lives of their soldiers compared to the much better trained and armed Wermacht. It was not because they were fighting harder than the Americans and Allies on the Western Front. (I absolutely do not agree with Patton’s statement the Allies “toured the continent with an army”. Patton was a good commander but was known for shooting his mouth off often very inappropriately and I would take anything he said with a ton of salt.) Further, the war on the Eastern front was largely fought on Russian soil and ran over very harsh winters which obviously meant huge numbers of Russian civilian casualties . The number of casualties one suffers does not say anything about contribution to the enemy’s downfall. A clear example is that China’s 12 million dead – if your figures are correct – did not in any way contribute to the Japanese defeat in WWII. It is unfortunate that they died, but the fact is that their deaths did not inflict the slightest damage on Japan. It was the Americans with far lower casualties that inflicted defeat on Japan. I don’t think you can use casualty figures as a measure of contribution to war effort. It is a measure of the war suffering.

On the current situation with the USA stuck in two unwinnable “wars”, I think we all know that it can be traced back to just one individual, who somehow, without being qualified to lead more than a minor league baseball team, somehow got himself elected commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military force. The current US administration now has to get itself out of this mess. The media certainly reported on the “wars” but I do not think they “fueled” it. That the USA got into them is pretty much due to one man’s inability to think beyond a kinder-garden level of sophistication on “good” and “evil”. I do believe that going forward – especially with regard to the PRC and Russia, the government of the USA will be more intelligent in its approach.

]]> By: TC http://www.p65.sg/2009/09/inglorious-basterds/comment-page-1/#comment-608 TC Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:58:53 +0000 http://p65.sg/newp65/?p=256#comment-608 @fred: I beg to differ on the military history portion, regardless of western media propaganda, their air campaigns were a lot less effective than purported (except for slaughtering innocent civilians through indiscriminate fire-bombing), German industrial production was actually up exponentially after '42, and as usual, its always "disaprage the Russians and Chinese who lost 20 million and 12 million respectively", and the great Americans won everything hands-down. Just note that the same media bozos advcating this line of western worship has now fuled TWO unwinnable wars in the middle east/near east, and looking at today's venom directed against China's celebration of her 60th national day, means that these guys are goading for an eventual showdown with both the PRC and Russian Federation someday, regardless of who they place in that white house of theirs. @fred:
I beg to differ on the military history portion, regardless of western media propaganda, their air campaigns were a lot less effective than purported (except for slaughtering innocent civilians through indiscriminate fire-bombing), German industrial production was actually up exponentially after ‘42, and as usual, its always “disaprage the Russians and Chinese who lost 20 million and 12 million respectively”, and the great Americans won everything hands-down. Just note that the same media bozos advcating this line of western worship has now fuled TWO unwinnable wars in the middle east/near east, and looking at today’s venom directed against China’s celebration of her 60th national day, means that these guys are goading for an eventual showdown with both the PRC and Russian Federation someday, regardless of who they place in that white house of theirs.

]]> By: Fredric Fanthome http://www.p65.sg/2009/09/inglorious-basterds/comment-page-1/#comment-541 Fredric Fanthome Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:02:42 +0000 http://p65.sg/newp65/?p=256#comment-541 @ junkgirl Appreciate your comments, but you make my piece sound more like an exercise in using a film review to get a point across – somewhat as if I had an agenda or “message” to put forward and was searching for a right medium to exploit for greatest impact. In actual fact, everything I wrote was a reaction to the film and what I felt it was suggesting or at least condoning - on the surface – and perhaps, on second thoughts, the questions it was asking at a deeper level. I really had no “message” beforehand. Would be interesting to know your thoughts regarding the film itself. Have you seen it? @TC Thanks for the links and names you suggested…. I will certainly look them up! Quality movies are something I am always looking out for. I don’t think Inglourious Basterds was a propaganda film though – I daresay Tarantino was mocking the typical western war movie, the more I think about it. Lt. Raines (Brad Pitt’s character) is clearly an inept, bigoted, even immature commander who far from being able to manage the circumstances is clearly out of his depth and being swept along by the plans of other people - Von Hammersmark and Hicox (Brit intelligence) and then is completely at the mercy of Col. Landa (Christolph Waltz). His idea of fighting is to machine-gun everything in sight. Clearly strategy and intelligence are not his greatest strengths. In fact I am given to wonder if he has any strengths other than carving swastikas on foreheads. His involvement is almost incidental to the progress of the film – his plan fails completely and the final outcome is decided, interestingly, by Soshannah and Landa who, as enemies, do not even realize they are working towards the same end. I think having Pitt front the marketing of the film has to be one of the biggest gimmicks in the history of film marketing. His role in the film is practically a cameo. With regard to the facts of the war, being a bit of a military history buff, I am pretty well acquainted with them. Russia certainly suffered tremendously and fought very hard. I think the Allies do deserve credit though. Ultimately it was the continuous Allied bombing of German manufacturing along with a few crazy decisions by Hitler, where he overruled his generals, that put the Wermacht out of commission, or they could have held off the Russians for years. @Singapore Short Stories I agree. Your nick is no less interesting. Care to share the background? @ junkgirl

Appreciate your comments, but you make my piece sound more like an exercise in using a film review to get a point across – somewhat as if I had an agenda or “message” to put forward and was searching for a right medium to exploit for greatest impact. In actual fact, everything I wrote was a reaction to the film and what I felt it was suggesting or at least condoning – on the surface – and perhaps, on second thoughts, the questions it was asking at a deeper level. I really had no “message” beforehand.

Would be interesting to know your thoughts regarding the film itself. Have you seen it?

@TC

Thanks for the links and names you suggested…. I will certainly look them up! Quality movies are something I am always looking out for.

I don’t think Inglourious Basterds was a propaganda film though – I daresay Tarantino was mocking the typical western war movie, the more I think about it. Lt. Raines (Brad Pitt’s character) is clearly an inept, bigoted, even immature commander who far from being able to manage the circumstances is clearly out of his depth and being swept along by the plans of other people – Von Hammersmark and Hicox (Brit intelligence) and then is completely at the mercy of Col. Landa (Christolph Waltz). His idea of fighting is to machine-gun everything in sight. Clearly strategy and intelligence are not his greatest strengths. In fact I am given to wonder if he has any strengths other than carving swastikas on foreheads. His involvement is almost incidental to the progress of the film – his plan fails completely and the final outcome is decided, interestingly, by Soshannah and Landa who, as enemies, do not even realize they are working towards the same end.

I think having Pitt front the marketing of the film has to be one of the biggest gimmicks in the history of film marketing. His role in the film is practically a cameo.

With regard to the facts of the war, being a bit of a military history buff, I am pretty well acquainted with them. Russia certainly suffered tremendously and fought very hard. I think the Allies do deserve credit though. Ultimately it was the continuous Allied bombing of German manufacturing along with a few crazy decisions by Hitler, where he overruled his generals, that put the Wermacht out of commission, or they could have held off the Russians for years.

@Singapore Short Stories

I agree. Your nick is no less interesting. Care to share the background?

]]> By: Singapore Short Stories http://www.p65.sg/2009/09/inglorious-basterds/comment-page-1/#comment-527 Singapore Short Stories Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:41:01 +0000 http://p65.sg/newp65/?p=256#comment-527 The name of the movie really makes an impression. The name of the movie really makes an impression.

]]> By: TC http://www.p65.sg/2009/09/inglorious-basterds/comment-page-1/#comment-523 TC Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:59:36 +0000 http://p65.sg/newp65/?p=256#comment-523 Don't get too affected by American propaganda movies about WWII. Distorting truth and reality while masking political overtones is something Hollywood does rather effectively, and the American public laps it up. For the record, 20 million Russians died, 12 million Chinese perished and 6 million Jews were wiped out during WWII, and the Russians did most of the fighting and dying against Europe's most modern and advanced war machine while the western allies appeared "at the right time" just to (in the words of George F. Patton) "tour the continent with an army", claiming all the credit for "winning" the war in the process. For more erudite, realistic and classy movies about the war, you can check out the Russian classics at: http://www.youtube.com/user/birubirFilms with Ivan's Childhood, The Star, One-Two, Soldiers were going, The Hot Snow, Only 'Old Men' are Going to Battle, Tomorrow comes the War, Come and See, The Dawns Here are Quiet and 17 Moments of Spring. War is shown in all its stark reality, no glory here, just the sick tragedy of it all. Going back to Hollywood productions regarding the war would just be an insult to one's intelligence after watching these greats. Don’t get too affected by American propaganda movies about WWII. Distorting truth and reality while masking political overtones is something Hollywood does rather effectively, and the American public laps it up. For the record, 20 million Russians died, 12 million Chinese perished and 6 million Jews were wiped out during WWII, and the Russians did most of the fighting and dying against Europe’s most modern and advanced war machine while the western allies appeared “at the right time” just to (in the words of George F. Patton) “tour the continent with an army”, claiming all the credit for “winning” the war in the process. For more erudite, realistic and classy movies about the war, you can check out the Russian classics at:
http://www.youtube.com/user/birubirFilms
with Ivan’s Childhood, The Star, One-Two, Soldiers were going, The Hot Snow, Only ‘Old Men’ are Going to Battle, Tomorrow comes the War, Come and See, The Dawns Here are Quiet and 17 Moments of Spring. War is shown in all its stark reality, no glory here, just the sick tragedy of it all. Going back to Hollywood productions regarding the war would just be an insult to one’s intelligence after watching these greats.

]]> By: junkgirl http://www.p65.sg/2009/09/inglorious-basterds/comment-page-1/#comment-514 junkgirl Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:55:57 +0000 http://p65.sg/newp65/?p=256#comment-514 Congratulations! This is a very effective way to get a message or point across. Fuse the message with a metaphor or an allegorical story. In this case a movie review is used to good effect. Great! First used in our internet by the brotherhood press, if I am not mistaken. Only they have even been able to extend it to the whole idea of travelogues and even use music scores to further amplify their message. This is definitely an improvement from what was previously on offer before. Keep it up. And do press on. Congratulations! This is a very effective way to get a message or point across. Fuse the message with a metaphor or an allegorical story. In this case a movie review is used to good effect. Great! First used in our internet by the brotherhood press, if I am not mistaken. Only they have even been able to extend it to the whole idea of travelogues and even use music scores to further amplify their message. This is definitely an improvement from what was previously on offer before. Keep it up. And do press on.

]]>