Replies

This is a sticky subject. And the counter-question is, might we soon see a Spielberg- or Eastwood-directed German-version of the events that took place at Oradour, or perhaps a German-version of the Eastern Front exploits of 5th SS Panzerdivision Viking? Or, 61 years from now, an American-directed Muslim-version of the events that took place on 9/11? Or in Baghdad? Or Tora Bora? Will our grandchildren be buying Iranian cars?

Nothing wrong with improving relations with Japan, mind you: But if one remembers recent history, for every 100 Allied prisoners taken by the Germans, three perished; for every 100 prisoners taken by the Japanese, 37 died.

The Japanese still staunchly remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Tokyo fireraids of March 1945, though they have indeed largely failed to tell their schoolchildren anything of the war beyond these--and the effort to obfuscate in Japan appears to have been intentional through the decades.

We returned Iwo to the Japanese in '68, and Okinawa in '72--and though Okinawa has periodically been under Japanese rule through the centuries, it never was truly Japanese (see George Kerr's "Okinawa: The History of an Island People"). Also appears as if U.S. troops may permanently be departing that island for Guam within the coming years.

Oddly enough, I'm of the impression--incorrectly or otherwise--that the U.S. is still getting the short end of the stick in its relations with Japan--and all because we may ultimately need that country in the event of a potential conflict with China. And of course we all know what happened in China between 1937-45, and who bore a significant brunt of the fighting against Japan during the Asiatic-Pacific War. I do hope that in passionately studying Kuribayashi, Clint has in fact devoted at least a little time to Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking."

One of our Iwo survivors noted that the upcoming film is perhaps more about money than reality, and I'm strongly inclined to agree. But I'm also willing to go a step further in saying that I similarly think that there are unspoken political motivations/considerations behind the making of this movie.

I greatly admire James Bradley (actually had the pleasure of meeting him once), and I similarly admire both George Bush Sr., and his son. But I also understand that the three are friends. Bradley's first book took a somewhat anti-Japanese tone; his second a decidedly softer one toward our former enemy. Just after "Flyboys" hit the bookshelves, I noted that President Bush (Sr.) was quick to say, "The war was long ago; the Japanese are no longer our enemies."

Indeed, they're not: But I do hope that, in courting their favor today, we aren't positioning ourselves to undergo a whitewash of history in order to make everyone feel good. As Lincoln once rightly observed, you can't please everyone all the time, and you certainly shouldn't attempt to do so for the wrong reasons or short-term political expediency. John Bradley was a fine human being, and probably a very forgiving one: But, if you'll remember, he never let his memories of Ralph Ignatowski stray too far, and neither was he willing to allow the passage of "time [to blur] the jagged contours of Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere...." (See William Manchester's "American Caesar" - p257)

Sorry for the windiness. Hope I haven't offended anyone with this observation. Just a thought.