[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
PoliticsOL.com Editorial - Week of June 3, 2001 Pearl Harbor (the movie) No History Lesson
Millions of Americans flocked this past Memorial Day weekend to see the new, block-buster motion picture, "Pearl Harbor."
While it is fitting that we remember the sacrifice of our veterans, we should also keep in mind that this is not a documentary, but a movie that sometimes uses "artistic license" to distort historical facts for dramatic (or perhaps
underlying) purposes.
Viewers should rest assured that U.S. Admiral Husband Kimmel, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet that was largely destroyed at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, was not out playing golf the morning of the surprise attack. He was, in fact, just preparing to leave for his office because of a report that a U.S. navy destroyer had dropped depth charges on a sub operating inside the security zone of the naval base.
The producers of Pearl Harbor were told by U.S. Navy officials that the golf scene in their script wasn't accurate, but they left it in anyway. The producers of Pearl Harbor should be right-fully shamed for portraying Kimmel in this light.
The Navy played a major role in helping keep the production costs of the film down by cooperating with the producers, who also used the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Constellation for their filming of some scenes.
The Navy hopes that the film will spur recruitment, which has been sagging for years. But, it's a disgrace that the Navy would cooperate with the film's producers and not insist on the removal of such a scene. But, apparently, the lasting reputation of one of their own who has been deceased for decades now means nothing to some of the current Navy brass.
The U.S. Congress recently restored -- posthumously -- the highest ranks earned by Admiral Kimmel and Lt. General Walter Short, the highest-ranking Army officer on Hawaii. Although other high-ranking military officials who might have bore more ultimate responsibility for the consequences of the Japanese attack escaped punishment, Kimmel and Short were forced to retire at lower ranks. It took sixty years to right this injustice placed on these two fine, once highly respected career officers, who were made convenient scapegoats after the attack.
Unlike the 1970 film, Tora! Tora! Tora!, which detailed how senior American military planners in Washington kept crucial information out of the hands of U.S. Pacific commanders before the attack, the film Pearl Harbor brings no new historical perspective on the events leading up to December 7, 1941. The movie gets far too many historical facts wrong, Jon Voight's portrayal of F.D.R. is sub-par, and concludes with Colonel Doolittle's famous raid on Tokyo, instead of leaving movie-goers with a somber reflection about the dangers of isolationism and lack of military preparedness.
Indeed, Disney, which produced the film, seems to have even edited out some scenes for their overseas distribution -- scenes which would have otherwise portrayed the governments of Japan and its Axis-partner, Nazi Germany, as the war-mongering military dictatorships which they were.
Pearl Harbor touches little on the rationale which led the Japanese to plan a knock-out blow at the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Sure, the U.S. oil embargo on Japan is mentioned, but the reason for the embargo -- Japan's cruel invasion of China -- is glossed over. Could the reason for this historical oversite be that Japan is now an ally and China a potential adversary?
The Allies didn't somehow provoke the Japanese military to invade China and subsequently murder millions of innocent people there. Neither did the Allies somehow provoke Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini to embark on six years of terror throughout Europe and Northern Africa, at the cost of tens of millions of lives in that theatre of war.
Unlike more recent wars in the twentieth century, there should be no historical dispute over who were the aggressors in World War II. There need not be a search through the annals of history to ever find a war in which was so clearly defined as good vs. evil.
Some anti-war critics and other apologists for the Fascists might revert to that old line that history is written by the victors. But now, instead, it appears to be written by a buck-hungry corporation that doesn't want to offend its overseas audience.
PoliticsOL.com reserves the right to shorten or to edit letters for clarity. Only signed letters will be considered for publication. (i.e., include name, city & state of residence)
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, was not out playing golf the morning of the surprise attack. He was, in fact, just preparing to leave for his office because of a report that a U.S. navy destroyer had dropped depth charges on a sub operating inside the security zone of the naval base.
the film Pearl Harbor brings no new historical perspective on the events leading up to December 7, 1941. The movie gets far too many historical facts wrong, Jon Voight's portrayal of F.D.R. is sub-par, and concludes with Colonel Doolittle's famous raid on Tokyo, instead of leaving movie-goers with a somber reflection about the dangers of isolationism and lack of military preparedness.
