Lion of the Blogosphere

Comment about WWII movies

The most significant thing about World War II is that it’s now considered the only good war, the only war in which we are allowed to cheer the victory of American forces without any guilt about having had to kill enemies in order to win that victory. (Even though the reality is that WWII was a much dirtier war, with much higher enemy civilian causalities, than any war fought by the United States since then, and we even used weapons of mass destruction on Japan.)

Any movie made about any other war, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, etc, has to be morally ambiguous, and generally give you the impression that the war was a mistake, that at best whatever benefit the United States achieved from it were not worth the harm caused to our soldiers, and at worst our soldiers are shown as complicit in an evil war against innocent enemy civilians.

World War II also allows the creation of action movies in which all of the heroes of the movie are white males. Action movies taking place in modern times or in sci-fi settings MUST have a racially and gender diverse cast, like in the new Star Wars movies.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 18, 2017 at 10:48 am

Posted in Movies, Uncategorized

107 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The WWII mythos was developed mostly in the 60s by Hollywood. It’s going to evaporate as the boomers die off. It already has very little hold on people under 35.

    bobbybobbob

    July 18, 2017 at 11:12 am

    • The WWII mythos was developed mostly in the 60s by Hollywood.

      Of course!

      Because its not as if there was a large population of American veterans between 1945-1960 who wanted to see movies about the largest war in history which they had just served in!

      The Undiscovered Jew

      July 18, 2017 at 11:59 am

      • You’re missing the point that it was complex subject in the popular mind until I guess about the late 60s. It only then became sacralized. I mean, you had labor strikes during the war and some protests, but that’s all gone down the memory hole.

        bobbybobbob

        July 18, 2017 at 1:23 pm

      • For an example of what bobbybobbob is talking about, take this scene from “The Americanization of Emily,” a WW2 film made in 1964:

        Nobody would dare film a WW2 scene like that today.

        Richard

        July 18, 2017 at 2:10 pm

      • You’re missing the point that it was complex subject in the popular mind until I guess about the late 60s.

        It wasn’t complex before 1960.

        Check polls from the time – isolationist sentiment evaporated completely after Pearl Harbor.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 18, 2017 at 3:52 pm

      • I can only hope people were smart enough for this guys sentiment to be widespread:

        People were fed a totally positive message about the soviet Union throughout the war. paying an incredible price in treasure and human lives to defend them and ensure their survival, and then almost immediately they became an evil enemy and the US had to spend more money and more lives fighting them, while living under the threat of an apocalyptic war for 50 years. That’s gotta register with at at least some people, even if Hollywood is not going to support that narrative.

        Magnavox

        July 18, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    • WWII video games are very popular with the under 35 market

      Alex

      July 18, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    • The newsreel propaganda WW2 narrative is the greatest Boomer shibboleth. And you are exactly right, it dies with them.

      Two in the Bush

      July 19, 2017 at 12:22 am

    • I don’t know. The Civil War still has a hold on a lot of people, even though the children of the participants, not to mention the participants themselves, are all long dead.

      Jimmy Kangaroo

      July 19, 2017 at 11:11 am

    • Why do you think it is a myth? I’m Canadian, not American. My father was a pilot in the RCAF, stationed in Europe. I grew up listening to my parents talking about the War, about how evil Hitler was, how cruel the Japs were, and how lucky we were that our side won.

      My mom wouldn’t listen to singer Maurice Chevalier because he collaborated with the Nazis. She didn’t like Walt Disney—claimed he was a Nazi. Didn’t want to buy Japanese cars.

      I believe what they told be is the truth, not a myth. Do you think the Holocaust was a myth?

      Rosenmops

      July 19, 2017 at 5:56 pm

      • Angry French Guy (whose blog theme reminds you of LoftB) has a piece on one particular Québécois and his ties to Fascism and Holocaust Denial.

        Adrien Arcand, who was a French Canadian was one of the 1st Holocaust deniers. A virulent anti-semite, he was also able to gain popularity among the Canadian Conservative Party, and was disliked by his fellow French Canadians, because he was firm believer of Anglosphere Imperialism and against Québec sovereignty.

        https://angryfrenchguy.com/2010/05/10/quebec-nationalists-nazis-and-adrien-arcand/

        Politics and extremism produce strange bedfellows of this kind.

        JS

        July 19, 2017 at 9:04 pm

  2. What is the point of this post?

    The fact is, morally, we were in the right, against two evil enemies. Our alliance with Russia was purely expedience.

    The rest of the conflicts were ambiguous, and in the case of Vietnam, we were wrong, and they were right. We took over a colonial war when the French got kicked out.

    gothamette

    July 18, 2017 at 11:17 am

    • Americans at the time very much wanted to stay out. The end result of American involvement was half of Europe fell to a brutal empire for 45 years and much of Asia was mired in civil war for decades (often with drafted 20 year old Americans getting killed). The last vestiges of the republic were also ripped away and we got stuck with a bloated old world style imperial state. It would have been perfectly “expedient” to have had effective diplomatic relations with Japan and Germany. It’s not obvious how the outcomes would have been worse than what happened.

      bobbybobbob

      July 18, 2017 at 11:38 am

      • We should have carefully tailored our involvement to do the most damage to both the soviet union and Germany, playing them off one another and aiding the weaker one until they both destroyed one another. Instead America got duped into yet another war.

        Vietnam was for more noble than World War 2. If you think that all the wars the US won were noble and good and all the ones the US lost were evil than you’re not thinking about history very intelligently.

        Magnavox

        July 18, 2017 at 12:35 pm

      • “We should have carefully tailored our involvement to do the most damage to both the soviet union and Germany, playing them off one another and aiding the weaker one until they both destroyed one another.”

        What do you think we did?

        We didn’t engage the bulk of German forces until the war was a foregone conclusion and Germany was already starting to collapse, 5 years into a 6 year war. The Russians suffered 20 million dead, the Anglo-Americans less than 1 million, and we ended up occupying the more valuable real estate, including most of Germany.

        We could have tried to cut it closer, but you run a number of risks doing that. The Soviets could collapse completely, they could occupy all of Europe, or they could make a separate peace with the Germans, as they did in WW1.

        Overall, while it was partly by accident, U.S. strategy at a high level was fairly close to optimal, achieving maximum results with minimal investment.

        All that said, I’m ambivalent about whether we should have intervened in the first place. I can see the case for neutrality, but if intervening was the right thing to do, it couldn’t have realistically gone much better.

        Wency

        July 18, 2017 at 2:28 pm

      • Magnavox, many times you’ve proven on this website that you are an idiot. But if I didn’t know it then, I sure knew it now. I won’t waste my time trying to convince you of anything.

        1. We were attacked by Japan. We declared war on them.
        2. Germany declared war on us. Germany was run by a virulently evil cult, which wanted to murder every Jew on earth, and enslave Poland. I realize you probably don’t give a shit what happened to the Jews, but maybe what happened to the Polish Catholics might give you pause. Google “Czeslawa Kwoka”, you ignorant little monster.
        3. “Carefully tailored our involvement to do the most damage to Russia.” What a bozo you are. As if Napoleon and Hitler didn’t prove that you stay out of that frozen bog.
        4. Vietnam…noble, yeah. We delivered a country that had fought bitterly and courageously for its independence back to its colonial master (France) after WWII, during which that colonial master had sucked up to the Germans. The French massacred Vietnamese, stole their land, and attempted to force an alien religion on them. After they failed, we took over.

        You are a sick fucker Magnavox. I don’t just disagree with you, the way I disagree with destructure. I despise you.

        gothamette

        July 18, 2017 at 2:32 pm

      • What do you think we did?

        The US did everything it could to defeat the axis powers. Russia suffered terribly, but they survived with enough strength to occupy half of Europe. In fact the terrible casualties they incurred were a major motivating factor in their expansionary policy because they were obsessed with the prospect of future attacks and wanted buffer states.

        they [soviets] could occupy all of Europe,

        The US could have mobilized and waited on the sidelines. Switzerland mobilized during the war but were motivated by a genuine desire to stay out of the conflict so they intelligently resisted all sorts of attempts to be drawn in. And the leaders of Switzerland during that period are revered to this day because of it. Although admittedly FDR and Churchill are also revered.

        The US also could have supported the axis powers if the Soviet Union became too strong, as Truman proposed.

        If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

        they could make a separate peace with the Germans, as they did in WW1.

        Are there any historians that think this was even remotely possible? Surely it would have required a revolution that was impossible. Although the question is not whether or not we now know it would have been possible but what the US should have reasonably assumed during the period given the information they had then.

        Magnavox

        July 18, 2017 at 6:10 pm

      • We could have decimated another East Asian nation like Vietnam with another little boy.

        The Boeing B-29 bombers, Superfortress that dropped the A-Holes in Japan, were used in the Vietnam war.

        JS

        July 18, 2017 at 9:15 pm

      • “We should have carefully tailored our involvement to do the most damage to both the soviet union and Germany, playing them off one another and aiding the weaker one until they both destroyed one another.”

        What do you think we did?

        We didn’t engage the bulk of German forces until the war was a foregone conclusion

        This was not the “tailored result” of a deliberate policy. We engaged the Germans as fast as we could. The limiting factor was shipping; we could only get men and equipment over there so fast given the amount of transport we had, and we had to keep the Japanese in check as well. FDR and George Marshall were desperate to help the Soviets. In no sense were they “hanging back” or slow-rolling the deployment of US troops to Europe.

        Tarl

        July 18, 2017 at 11:51 pm

    • The end result of American involvement was half of Europe fell to a brutal empire for 45 years and much of Asia was mired in civil war for decades

      That was Germany and Japan’s fault.

      The last vestiges of the republic were also ripped away and we got stuck with a bloated old world style imperial state.

      Imperial states are healthy, normal parts of world politics. The Roman Empire lasted 1000 years. The Eastern Empire outlived the Western Empire by another millennium. If the crusaders hadn’t botched the Crusades Byzantium might still exist in some form.

      The problem with Progressive foreign policy is that it doesn’t act like a real empire.

      It would have been perfectly “expedient” to have had effective diplomatic relations with Japan and Germany.

      No it wasn’t.

      Germany declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbor.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      July 18, 2017 at 12:02 pm

      • The American establishment maneuvered for war for years before 1941, and through covert support to the british was effectively already at war. American neutrality was perfectly viable. The Japanese would not have made the dash for the indonesian oil fields in the first place without the sanctions. They would have maintained their northern buffer states, neutralized mao, and put down communist insurrections in other parts of asia.

        bobbybobbob

        July 18, 2017 at 1:15 pm

      • “Imperial states are healthy, normal parts of world politics.”

        That might be the smartest thing you’ve ever said here. We are obsessed with this republicanism thing because of our so-called revolution, which was really a civil war/secession from the Brit Empire.

        gothamette

        July 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm

      • bobby is right here — FDR never really tried for neutrality. Even with all the aid to Britain and the ASW against Germany, it might have happened if not for the sanctions against Japan.

        “If the crusaders hadn’t botched the Crusades”

        When reading the history of the 1st Crusade, I still find it remarkable that it succeeded. A collection of squabbling minor lords, accustomed only to small-scale local warfare, agree to gather and launch an invasion against a hostile land, more technologically advanced, halfway on the other side of the known world, and THEY SUCCEED.

        There was no way for the Kingdom of Jerusalem to survive in the long run against determined local opposition. It’s remarkable how much support they did continue to receive, particularly from kings like Richard Lionheart who lost much and had nothing to gain except piety points. Though the 4th Crusade could probably have been avoided, Byzantium’s fate was sealed centuries earlier.

        Wency

        July 18, 2017 at 2:45 pm

      • The American establishment maneuvered for war for years before 1941, and through covert support to the british was effectively already at war.

        Not even Hitler agreed with you about our aid to Britain because Hitler didn’t declare war on us when we were sending material to the UK.

        He declared war on us after Pearl Harbor.

        The Japanese would not have made the dash for the indonesian oil fields in the first place without the sanctions. They would have maintained their northern buffer states, neutralized mao, and put down communist insurrections in other parts of asia.

        It wasn’t Hitler’s responsibility to help the Japanese, and exponentially increasing the risk of losing his war in Europe by drawing the US in, because the Japanese went on a rampage across Asia.

        Our entry into the war was Hitler’s fault.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 18, 2017 at 3:50 pm

      • We are obsessed with this republicanism thing because of our so-called revolution, which was really a civil war/secession from the Brit Empire.

        And the British had a good couple of centuries of fun with their Empire.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 18, 2017 at 5:13 pm

      • bobby is right here — FDR never really tried for neutrality.

        There are degrees of non-neutrality.

        By declaring war on America Hitler converted Lend-Lease into American firebombings of German cities. If a purely neutral American stance towards Britain wasn’t feasible the smart move for Hitler was to keep our role limited to Lend-Lease since our direct intervention could only make Germany’s position orders of magnitude worse.

        There were ways for Hitler to avoid provoking America into escalating its role from Lend-Lease to full scale war but he never took them because he fetishized expanding the war to as many major powers as possible.

        If he hadn’t done been so aggressive he would have stood a better chance of winning despite indirect American support of Britain.

        But he didn’t, so what is the point in trying to obscure Hitler’s very unambiguous culpability?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 18, 2017 at 5:27 pm

      • When reading the history of the 1st Crusade, I still find it remarkable that it succeeded. A collection of squabbling minor lords, accustomed only to small-scale local warfare, agree to gather and launch an invasion against a hostile land, more technologically advanced, halfway on the other side of the known world, and THEY SUCCEED.

        I tend to think Muslim military technology was not as advanced as Islamic apologists would have people believe.

        Weaponry from that time was primarily limited to hand held weapons, archery, and horses. Whatever advantages Muslims had in, say, armor and sword quality over European Crusaders wasn’t as dramatic as the military advantages 19th century European colonialists had over conquered natives.

        Internal European political divisions, religious squabbling, and long supply lines deep in enemy territory were the main obstacles to a lasting victory.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 18, 2017 at 5:35 pm

      • “Imperial states are healthy, normal parts of world politics.”

        A healthy normal part of politics that no longer exists in the world? How does that make sense? Maybe you have some countries with emperors AKA dictators but no more empires. And the closest thing to empires are all shitholes. There are all sorts of practices and institutions that existed throughout history that we’re better off without.

        Magnavox

        July 18, 2017 at 5:55 pm

      • American neutrality was perfectly viable.

        Except for the part where the Red Army winds up “liberating” France in 1945 and Stalin controls ALL of Europe instead of the (shittiest) half of it after the war. Ooops.

        Tarl

        July 18, 2017 at 11:53 pm

    • Shouldn’t you read Michael Lind before you decide about Vietnam?

      Marty

      July 18, 2017 at 6:05 pm

      • I have read him. I thought it was a good show, and for Lost Causers, it’s probably as close to admitting we were wrong.

        Look, it’s taken me many years to come to this bitter conclusion, and only because I’ve been reading about the Southern Lost Causers, and I realized that I was no better than they were. I had my own Lost Cause. Well, I don’t anymore.

        gothamette

        July 19, 2017 at 11:30 am

  3. Civil War? ‘Glory’.

    Dave

    July 18, 2017 at 11:24 am

    • The interesting thing about the Civil War is that no one today really identifies with the dominant motive of the winning side: the preservation of the Union. Hence, in order to appeal to modern audiences, the war has to be re-imagined as being motivated by Abolitionism, even though that was initially regarded as an extremist position that motivated very few people on the ground.

      I remember Larry David even remarking on this in Curb Your Enthusiasm. “600,000 people died for what?
      To save the Union? Who cares about saving the Union?”

      The Civil War happened 150 years ago, but the values that drove us to wage it are entirely alien to our society. We can relate more easily to the Greco-Persian Wars.

      There are probably far more people who identify with the Confederate cause than about the idea of fighting to preserve the Union, especially if the Confederacy is re-imagined as having nothing to do with slavery.

      Wency

      July 18, 2017 at 12:06 pm

      • The interesting thing about the Civil War is that no one today really identifies with the dominant motive of the winning side: the preservation of the Union.

        One of the reasons is that the US was founded on secession from England, so it’s a bit awkward to have killed 600,000 soldiers (plus an undetermined but ungodly number of freed blacks who starved) because part of the country was trying to exercise the same supposed right. I hope that people also realize that fighting to be in the same country with blacks and dysfunctional whites was stupid and pointless.

        Magnavox

        July 18, 2017 at 3:43 pm

      • “especially if the Confederacy is re-imagined as having nothing to do with slavery.”

        I wish I knew what this means. Nobody at any level of education has any notion of the Confederacy that doesn’t center on slavery. The only way that anyone today identifies with the Confederate cause is if they’ve become “woke” to the nature of blacks, I.e. have been victims of black crime.

        Explainer 21

        July 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm

      • @Explainer

        You clearly haven’t spent much time in the South. The idea that the Confederacy was a noble defense of states’ rights, and that slavery was immaterial to the equation, is incorrect but has an old history. The next time you see a Bubba flying the Stars and Bars, ask him if:

        1. The Confederates fought for a noble cause.
        2. That cause had anything to do with slavery.

        You’ll get a Yes and a No.

        My only point is that such Bubbas vastly outnumber the population that is prepared to stand in defense of slavery, or the population that thinks preservation of the Union is a cause worth dying for.

        Wency

        July 18, 2017 at 9:52 pm

    • Yeah he completely ignores the civil war, which if anything gets an even more positive representation despite being much much stupider than the vanilla level stupid involvement in World War 2.

      Magnavox

      July 18, 2017 at 12:36 pm

    • The interesting thing about the Civil War is that no one today really identifies with the dominant motive of the winning side: the preservation of the Union.

      The Union’s cause still kicks ass if only it could find more people to pick it up.

      Infrastructure, business friendly Capitalism, protectionism, emphasis on manufacturing, realist (not isolationist) foreign policy willing to tolerate foreign despots if they cooperate, pro-white demographics, fueling the military industrial complex, are all taken from Lincoln and Hamilton’s winning playbook.

      Trump ran and won on the closest thing to Lincoln’s Hamiltonian Republican platform in nearly a century. As the icing on the cake Trump won despite losing the popular vote thanks to Hamilton’s electoral college.

      Lincolnism is a perfectly viable American Nationalism.

      What is not politically viable at all is the peanut gallery’s sacred imaginary historical universe where the Civil War was not caused by slavery (expansion), empire is a weak form of government, and Hitler was just Mother Theresa with a mustache and swastika armband.

      https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2016/11/17/the-robber-barron-nationalism-of-hamilton-lincoln-finds-a-potential-ally-in-trump/

      https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/06/28/a-republican-by-any-other-name/

      The Undiscovered Jew

      July 18, 2017 at 1:46 pm

      • How does your amoral realpolitik justify opposition to Hitler then?

        Tom

        July 18, 2017 at 2:50 pm

      • pro-white demographics

        The US would have gotten a whole lot more white if he had just let the slave holding states secede.

        Magnavox

        July 18, 2017 at 3:44 pm

      • How does your amoral realpolitik justify opposition to Hitler then?

        Because, silly, Hitler declared war on us.

        And American foreign policy realism isn’t completely amoral.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 18, 2017 at 5:09 pm

      • So your opposition to Hitler is simply that he declared war on us? If he hadn’t declared war, you wouldn’t have been opposed to him?

        Tom

        July 18, 2017 at 6:07 pm

      • If he hadn’t declared war,

        If Adolf Hitler were Grace Kelly, Adolf Hitler would have been Princess of Monaco in 1956.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm

      • How does your amoral realpolitik justify opposition to Hitler then?

        That’s easy. It is not in US interests for a Nazi Superpower to crush the USSR, cripple the British Empire, and control Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals and from the North Cape to Capetown.

        Tarl

        July 18, 2017 at 11:58 pm

      • If Adolf Hitler were Grace Kelly

        I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Are you suggesting that the issue of Hitler declaring war or not is an absurd hypothetical? I don’t think it is, but even if it is, you seem to be suggesting that your only opposition to Hitler is that he declared war on us, which is a pretty extreme view.

        Tom

        July 19, 2017 at 12:13 am

      • Are you suggesting that the issue of Hitler declaring war or not is an absurd hypothetical?

        I’m suggesting that a hypothetical Hitler who does not declare war on America is operating from a completely different mindset from the historical Hitler. How we should have handled your strawman Hitler is not relevant to how we dealt with real one.

        you seem to be suggesting that your only opposition to Hitler is that he declared war on us, which is a pretty extreme view.

        I’m saying his declaration of war was sufficient grounds to enter the war.

        After Germany declared war what do you think we should have done instead?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 19, 2017 at 4:07 pm

      • A Hitler that doesn’t declare war on the US is still Hitler though. You seem to be reducing the badness of Hitler simply to the fact that he declared war on the US. Again, that’s a pretty extreme view.

        I think he would’ve been a problem even if he never declared war on the US, and that there would have been serious moral considerations to declare war on him.

        Tom

        July 20, 2017 at 3:46 pm

  4. “Action movies taking place in modern times or in sci-fi settings MUST have a racially and gender diverse cast, like in the new Star Wars movies.”

    Even movies set in the past are having this problem. For example, in Wonder Woman (World War I) they invented a Noble Native American character who was in Europe, caught up in the war somehow.

    It’s unfortunate that these types of movies are so expensive to make and distribute, because nobody wants this politically correct schlock rammed down their throat. It’s being done only to satisfy a small group of Social Justice Warriors, and if blockbuster movies were inexpensive to make, it would not be long before someone started making excellent movies without all the political correctness. Which people would flock to if they had the choice.

    fortaleza84

    July 18, 2017 at 11:40 am

    • Actually most proles who watch these movies are too stupid to notice.

      • Perhaps, but they still provide strength in numbers for the Globalist elites ret-conning of our history.

        Roxborough's Son

        July 18, 2017 at 12:10 pm

    • It’s unfortunate that these types of movies are so expensive to make and distribute, because nobody wants this politically correct schlock rammed down their throat. It’s being done only to satisfy a small group of Social Justice Warriors, and if blockbuster movies were inexpensive to make, it would not be long before someone started making excellent movies without all the political correctness. Which people would flock to if they had the choice.

      That’s incoherent. The fact is that not everyone agrees with you and that large numbers of people either like these messages or aren’t bothered by them.

      Magnavox

      July 18, 2017 at 12:30 pm

      • I would have to disagree. In private, 80-90% of the white people I know roll their eyes at all this politically correct nonsense. I agree that for most of them, it won’t stop them from buying a movie ticket or watching a television show.

        But if there were a good alternative, most of these people would hop on board faster than you can say “deplorable.”

        fortaleza84

        July 18, 2017 at 1:49 pm

      • He was saying that films being so expensive force studios to put in social justice messages that alienate the vast majority of people in order to make a profit. That makes no sense.

        You’re saying that I’m wrong because the small totally unrepresentative sample of people you’ve talked to in private behave in a way that’s consistent with what I said. That makes no sense .

        Magnavox

        July 18, 2017 at 5:40 pm

      • “He was saying that films being so expensive force studios to put in social justice messages that alienate the vast majority of people in order to make a profit.”

        Not exactly, I am saying that since only a small number of entities can make blockbuster movies, they are a centralized and easy target for Social Justice Warriors. Do you disagree that if an industry is dominated by a few big players, it’s an easier target for Social Justice?

        “You’re saying that I’m wrong because the small totally unrepresentative sample of people you’ve talked to in private behave in a way that’s consistent with what I said”

        Umm, so you concede that most white people resent political correctness in movies, at least a little bit?

        fortaleza84

        July 18, 2017 at 7:51 pm

  5. World War II also allows the creation of action movies in which all of the heroes of the movie are white males. Action movies taking place in modern times or in sci-fi settings MUST have a racially and gender diverse cast, like in the new Star Wars movies.

    But all of the best WWII movies were produced decades ago when this wasn’t a problem.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    July 18, 2017 at 11:56 am

  6. Almost the entire American narrative on WWII is a lot of baloney.

    peterike

    July 18, 2017 at 12:11 pm

    • Correct. But if you tell that to a baby boomer they will melt the fuck down. The official American newsreel propaganda story of WW2 is literally the holiest of holies to these people.

      Two in the Bush

      July 19, 2017 at 12:31 am

      • My father was an infantry platoon leader in France in 1944. When I was eight years old, he unloaded his memories on me. One thing he said was that the advancing American troops would shoot German soldiers attempting to surrender because they were moving too fast to afford burdening themselves with prisoners. Remember, I was just eight when I heard this. I thought that was a sobering fact then, and I still think it’s a sobering fact today. Soldiers are no angels. Even a reviled Baby Boomer like me (one of those “people”) has always known that.

        Jimmy Kangaroo

        July 19, 2017 at 11:21 am

      • Yes, both my grandfathers fought in Europe as well. It was an amazing time. I am not really talking about the experiences of individual soldiers, but more about the overarching myth of the good war.

        Two in the Bush

        July 19, 2017 at 3:16 pm

  7. The most significant thing about World War II is that it’s now considered the only good war

    What about the Revolutionary War? Every year millions of Americans celebrate the Fourth of July, not the Sixth of June. Washington is more celebrated and revered than Eisenhower. Granted, the Revolutionary War is obviously not as cinematic as World War II.

    Vince

    July 18, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    • Not with regards to Hollywood though, which was Lion’s point. The Founding Fathers were a bunch of dead white slaveholding male hypocrites, according to the narrative.

      The 4th of July is our Midsummer Festival, just as Christmas is our Midwinter Festival. It has as much to do with independence from Britain as Christmas does with the birth of Jesus.

      The last movie about the Revolution I can remember was Mel Gibson’s The Patriot, which came out maybe 20 years ago, and he isn’t really a part of Hollywood.

      Wency

      July 18, 2017 at 2:11 pm

      • Also, I should add that the cause of Independence from Britain, while perhaps more motivational than preserving the Union (as I commented above), still isn’t all that inspiring today. It’s tough to look at Canada and Australia and imagine things being all that bad if the British had won.

        Gibson had to invent British atrocities, making Guy Tarleton into Darth Vader, to motivate his characters in The Patriot.

        Wency

        July 18, 2017 at 2:16 pm

      • This strikes me as strained. The main point was that WWII is the “Good War” and that’s *reflected* in Hollywood movies. One of the problems with the supporting point — invoking films — is that modern audiences, and especially critics, require some measure of ambiguity (if only a little). As I said, another potentially confounding variable is that a Revolutionary War is not as cinematic (no huge ‘splosions).

        I never saw the Gibson film, but it’s a mistake to say he “isn’t really a part of Hollywood.” Circa 2000 he was Mr. Hollywood.

        Regarding how consequential the Revolutionary War was… I tend to agree. In the public imagination, however, our Founding Fathers practically drafted a blueprint for freedom that was heretofore unknown (in the form of a slave state). If anything, maybe we could’ve abolished slavery sooner and avoided the bloodiest war in our violent history. I don’t think Lion mentioned the Revolutionary War because he just take it for granted. Fighting for independence against a monarchy is just naturally accepted without controversy.

        Vince

        July 18, 2017 at 2:49 pm

      • ‘It’s tough to look at Canada and Australia and imagine things being all that bad if the British had won.’

        True, but that’s the greatness and uniqueness of America – that it had enough freedom loving patriots and hooligans who didn’t see it that way.

        Yakov

        July 18, 2017 at 10:04 pm

  8. Weapons of Mass Destruction were inadvertently used in Europe too. During the Air raid on Bari the Germans blew up an American ship that was transporting mustard gas to Italy. Many of the rescued sailors and civilians died of exposure.

    PerezHBD

    July 18, 2017 at 12:49 pm

  9. 2016’s Warcraft, a fantasy movie based on a video game, has an almost entirely white cast. The half orc character was played by a half black woman. The rest of the orcs were cgi and the humans were all white. I still wonder how they got away with that.

    Alex

    July 18, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    • I think the Chinese were financing it, and if I’m not mistaken, it bombed in the US but did well in China. China has little interest in diverse casts, as apparent by how different The Force Awakens movie posters were in China as compared to the US.

      Mike Street Station

      July 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm

  10. Europeans (and people of European descent) dominated the world in almost every sense in 1913. The next year, they started to annihilate each other. Word War II was even worse. A generation later, they stopped having enough children to replace themselves. Now their share of the world population is a fraction of what it was 100 years ago.

    To people in the Western World in the not-so-distant future, the world wars in Europe will look less and less like good guy/ bad guy conflicts, and more like the beginning of the end… a gigantic self-destructive civil war that left the West much, much weaker relative to the rest of the world.

    SQ

    July 18, 2017 at 4:12 pm

    • Hot take.

      jjbees

      July 18, 2017 at 7:03 pm

      • In 1892, Columbus was a hero. In 1992, he was a villain.

        SQ

        July 18, 2017 at 11:58 pm

    • I do often wonder if the modern multicultural self hatred you see among whites is basically just another form of the militaristic self hatred you saw in earlier generations. Crazy self destructive wars between Europeans goes back far before World War I, by the way.

      Magnavox

      July 18, 2017 at 8:38 pm

      • The European wars between the 30 years war and the Napoleonic wars and also the ones between Napoleon and WW I were comparably restricted affairs for narrow goals. They can hardly be described as self-destructive because they often really made one nation more powerful and had comparably few casualties. The 30 years war is an exception but this was during the birthing labor of modern Europe and nation states. And this particular war was also seen as atrocious and horrible by the contemporaries, not as something noble.
        One could also note that the other extended action in the late 17th and early 18th century were the wars against the Ottomans. We tend to forget than only a little more than 300 years ago the Turks threatened central Europe.

        parrhesia

        July 19, 2017 at 5:46 am

  11. OT but Lion I think you will enjoy this. It’s one of your favorite subjects.

    http://mishtalk.com/2017/07/17/another-reason-men-dont-work-imaginary-world-more-enjoyable-than-the-real-world/

    Jay Fink

    July 18, 2017 at 4:35 pm

  12. Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 treated World War II like the morally ambiguous wars (from the Left’s point of view) that came after.

    The trigger for World War II was Hitler’s invasion of Poland in September, 1939. But Stalin also invaded Poland in September, 1939, and quickly also swallowed up the Baltic states. After the war, Stalin retained Poland along with the rest of Eastern Europe. In the West, World War II was an abject failure. I suppose you could put a positive spin on the outcome in the Pacific.

    Mark Caplan

    July 18, 2017 at 5:09 pm

    • In the West, World War II was an abject failure.

      Nope.

      Abject failure would be if USA didn’t intervene, and either Hitler or Stalin controlled Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.

      Letting Stalin have the crappy half of Europe while USA/UK liberated good half of Europe on the cheap was a great success.

      Tarl

      July 19, 2017 at 12:02 am

      • A big part of the reason Eastern Europe is so crappy is because of the soviet union. There are already about a half dozen former soviet satellites with higher standards of living than the US.

        Magnavox

        July 19, 2017 at 9:35 am

      • We are talking about 1941-45. At that time, eastern European crappiness had nothing to do with the USSR. Throwing them under the bus (or the IS-2 tank) was no great loss, especially because there was nothing we could do about it anyway.

        Tarl

        July 19, 2017 at 11:35 am

  13. The Spanish civil war on the anti-fascist side (as most would see it) would be judged by most modern Westerners as a ‘good war’ would it not?

    Of course it doesn’t have the same cinematic appeal because America and the rest of the democratic West didn’t really take part in it, although I understand there was quite a lot of support from American industrialists for the anti-communist cause–and rightly so.

    The point that you are making doesn’t just stop at films. In Britain, World War Two has become the only thing from our past that is allowed to be the subject of patriotic feeling. This has had the effect of turning conservative-minded people into rabid anti-Nazis, because without showing their anti-Nazi credentials they are denied the right to wallow in patriotic nostalgia in at least one area. You see this with the kind of people who like to say that ‘our grandfathers died fighting fascism’. It’s nonsense. I had plenty of conversations with old people when I was young, and the word ‘fascist’ was barely part of their vocabulary. This is quite understandable, as it is an ideology quite alien to the anglo-Saxon mind. It is always ‘the Germans’ who are referred to as the enemy. This is much more truthful to the way that people think: tribally much more than politically.

    prolier than thou

    July 18, 2017 at 5:25 pm

  14. “World War II also allows the creation of action movies in which all of the heroes of the movie are white males.”

    Not so fast. USA Today complains that in Dunkirk, “only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way”

    So racist AND misogynist. Not allowed. Never mind reality.

    gda

    July 18, 2017 at 6:00 pm

    • I figured that Lion was referring to Dunkirk. I’ve already come across the same sort of “white males? Blecch!” criticism of the movie. For myself, I’m looking forward to watching it, although I imagine that the female Dr Who will sweep in to save the day (assuming she can parallel park the TARDIS).

      Mike Street Station

      July 18, 2017 at 8:58 pm

    • It must be so disappointing for SJWs that the people who fought and killed the real Nazis were, almost entirely, white cisgendered men.

      Granted, I know that women in Britain, America and the USSR contributed to the war effort, and I know that those countries also drew on their non-white peoples to fight too, but the war wouldn’t have even been contestable if the deplorables in the Big Three had sat the fight out.

      Sid

      July 18, 2017 at 11:23 pm

  15. Best WWII movie, Cross of Iron (1977), with James Coburn. Best Vietnam move, Go Tell the Spartans (1978) with Burt Lancaster.

    Daniel

    July 18, 2017 at 8:04 pm

  16. Isn’t the Revolutionary War unambiguous? At the 5k race in Prospect Park yesterday the National Anthem was sung. This was nice. Unique to America, I think. JS, I Canada would they sing the anthem before a race?

    Yakov

    July 18, 2017 at 8:35 pm

    • The American Revolution was only about money.

      The French Revolution was about progress in government and knowledge, inspired by the Enlightenment, especially from Le Encyclopedie of Denis Diderot.

      Pre-Revolution, Anglophone Philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and his buddy, Francis Bacon, were just 2 cranky geezers counting coins, while talking about philosophy, compared to their French contemporary, Rene Descartes, who had a certain charm and traveled to different European countries, speculating about the world.

      I look at this comparison, and how the English Speaking world has evolved so differently from the French Speaking one.

      JS

      July 18, 2017 at 9:31 pm

      • hahahahahahaha…

        The philosophical French…

        They threw off the shackles of Monarchy and, scarcely ten years later, crowned Napoleon as an Emperor.

        They are still paying for the French revolution.

        map

        July 18, 2017 at 11:03 pm

      • The American Revolution was only about money.

        Nope. Dumb. American Revolution was ideological and philosophical.

        Tarl

        July 19, 2017 at 12:05 am

      • What were those ideological and philosophical principles?

        The New World was basically a trading outpost for Old World Europeans.

        JS

        July 19, 2017 at 8:18 am

      • And Spain was not only the forerunner of the New World, it had a singular purpose, which was to acquire gold, and gold only, by exploiting the natives. Unlike the British and French, who were trading furs and foodstuffs with the Indians, Spaniards came to the New World acquire true wealth, sort of like finance guys coming to NYC to extract money on Wall St. Therefore, the Spaniards were the real conquerors of the New World, and the most ruthless.

        Why did Spain conquer areas of the warm clime? There isn’t any place in the Northeast with a Spanish name. Gold, and gold was only found in the warm areas.

        JS

        July 19, 2017 at 8:46 am

      • What were those ideological and philosophical principles?

        Jesus, what the hell do they teach in schools these days? Did you not get educated in the USA or something? Those principles were (small r) republicanism, clearly embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (duh!).

        Bailyn is online for free.

        http://tcpbckup1.yolasite.com/resources/The%20Ideological%20Origins%20of%20the%20American%20Revolution%20By%20Bernard%20Bailyn.pdf

        Tarl

        July 19, 2017 at 11:41 am

      • “The American Revolution was only about money. The French Revolution was about progress in government and knowledge, inspired by the Enlightenment, “

        The French Revolution was absolutely about money. France lost the Seven Years War against Britain which left them heavily in debt. They tried to pay it off with a regressive taxation scheme that infuriated peasants at the monarchy and clergy Then they had some really bad harvests leading to starvation. Poor, hungry people take it out on whoever is in charge. That’s one of the main causes of revolutions. Which is a good lesson — people don’t revolt when they’re fat and happy. So if the people aren’t fat ad happy you better be looking for a scapegoat to save your own neck.

        Of course, they tried to give the French Revolution some sort of philosophical underpinning. Doesn’t every revolution? But it’s really about people being pissed off that they’re poor and someone has more than them and they want some of it. Unfortunately, the values and principles that gain currency during a revolution are those that appeal to the radicalized poor. That’s a terrible basis for civilization. And the world has been paying for it ever since.

        Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité sounds great but sucks azz. In practice it’s mob rule, socialism and pc run amok. I’d rather have a king.

        destructure

        July 19, 2017 at 1:31 pm

      • Destructure is right.

        The French Revolution started because the First and Second Estate tried to impose an income tax on the Third Estate.

        map

        July 19, 2017 at 9:33 pm

      • And why did the Anglos not come up with the idea of a grand Encyclopedia, which was written by a group of diverse Frenchmen with Denis Diderot as the compiler, that covered a broad of range topics from Arabic to Zoology, which later served as a catalyst for the French Revolution?

        Perhaps there was a paucity/lack of diversity among Anglo intellectuals.

        JS

        July 19, 2017 at 10:51 pm

    • JS, why can’t you just give a airtight answer to a straight question? The answer is ‘no’. In Canada they won’t sing the anthem before a race. I don’t understand this, realy, with 600,000 fatalities in the Civil War, the North should’ve let the South secede and conquer Canada instead. What were they thinking? Dumb and dumber. The South could’ve grabbed some more land from Mexico and we would have had two powerful countries. What a mess.

      Yakov

      July 19, 2017 at 6:57 am

      • There was a conflict that took place between New York and Montréal during the American Revolution, and the Americans lost to the British, as they tried to seize Montréal. This marked the end of the American presence in Canada.

        JS

        July 19, 2017 at 8:34 am

      • Mate, I know what had happened, please….. I’m just engaging in wishful thinking. It could have been so great!

        Yakov

        July 19, 2017 at 11:39 am

      • Actually, the Americans did try to take Canada again in the War of 1812 and failed for the 2nd time.

        JS

        July 19, 2017 at 11:23 pm

  17. It could be also because WW2 was the only war where America actually won. If for example America would have managed to get north Korea or Vietnam out of the communists claws you would see also more triumphant movies about those wars. People like winners, even left wingers, they are even more like women, they don’t have a moral compass, they prefer Stalin over Nixon because Stalin was a winner and Nixon screwed up.

    Hashed

    July 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm

    • This is hilariously ignorant.

      Panther of the Blogocube

      July 19, 2017 at 12:26 am

  18. A few WWII memorabilia from an American perspective are the Boeing B-17 and B-29 bombers (The Enola Gay that carried the A-Bomb was a B-29). Besides the curvy female caricature painted on some of the planes, I was always fascinated by the gunner turrets that swiveled at the top and under the belly of the aircraft.

    The worse thing that could possibly happen to anyone when maneuvering one of them, and not just being shot by enemy spitfire, was the scenario when one is trapped inside the belly turret, which happened to one of the gunners in The Mission, starring Kevin Costner, part of the Amazing Stories series, produced by Steven Spielberg.

    JS

    July 18, 2017 at 9:06 pm

    • Jimmy Stewart flew a B24 bomber. It’s an interesting story that starts with him being rejected for failing his physical and ends with him as an air force general. Yeah, Jimmy Stewart was a real general. People don’t know it because he added a clause to his contracts that it couldn’t be used to promote his movies.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stewart#Military_service
      http://www.historynet.com/mr-stewart-goes-to-war.htm

      destructure

      July 19, 2017 at 2:03 am

      • The B-24 Liberator does not have the iconic status of the B-17 Flying Fortress, which was the eminent American bomber on the European theater in WWII.

        JS

        July 19, 2017 at 8:16 am

      • He commented on that in the 2nd linked article.

        While he liked the B-17, he still had a soft spot for the Lib­erator. He later said of the B-24, “In combat, the airplane was no match for the B-17 as a formation bomb­er above 25,000 feet, but from 12,000 to 18,000 it did a fine job.”

        You don’t always get pick of the litter. Sometimes you use what you’ve got and make the best of it.

        destructure

        July 19, 2017 at 11:45 am

    • “Jimmy Stewart flew a B24 bomber.”

      I had an Uncle who flew in the same unit with him.

      Mike Street Station

      July 19, 2017 at 6:47 am

  19. Personally, I can’t stand WWII or WWI movies.

    A huge, unnecessary, intra-racial bloodletting.

    The real battle lines are between the global north and the global south.

    map

    July 18, 2017 at 11:08 pm

    • Interesting take, it’s true though.

      Yakov

      July 19, 2017 at 11:41 am

  20. The anti-war trend went back to WWI, as Tom Wolfe noted in his preface to The Right Stuff.

    Dave Pinsen

    July 19, 2017 at 12:34 am

  21. Lion, consider:

    Since you’re part of the Alt-Right (or Alt-Light, whatever) and believe in HBD, a Hollywood movie of your life and work would paint you as an evil Nazi who deserves to be killed by Antifa and other forces of good and light.

    fakeemail

    July 19, 2017 at 10:12 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: