Ken Burns: The War

[jomar]

Awesome start. Love his documentaries. And thank you, thank you, thank you to anybody who has served. Thank you.

 

[S-Des]

Awesome start. Love his documentaries. And thank you, thank you, thank you to anybody who has served. Thank you.

I heard about this and it sounds amazing. Now if I can just find the time to watch it.

 

[jomar]

I understand. If you can record it....

 

[S-Des]

I understand. If you can record it....

Isn't it like 13 hours?

 

[jomar]

Might be. I counted 10 1/2 in the TV guide, but it didn't go into next week.

 

[amicus]

Awesome start. Love his documentaries. And thank you, thank you, thank you to anybody who has served. Thank you.

~~~

Hello, jomar, thanks for the thread...I was going to make mention of the program as I too watched the first installment last evening and may or may not watch the rest and I too join in your appreciation for those who served.

I am a bit of a student of the second world war and watch about everything that is presented and there was some new footage of combat and it was enjoyable to see so much of 1930's and 1940's America and British scenery and peoples included, the people, the buildings, the automobiles and of course the music chosen to accompany the video was good to hear.

But that is about the end of the 'good' things I have to say about Ken Burns or the Public Broadcasting Network that produced and aired the program.

I had intended to search a biography of Burns and do a piece on this program, but my usual offerings are often ignored so I chose not to invest the time.

Ken Burns is a closet, and very subtle socialist and much of the narrative illustrates his political and philosophical underpinnings, he is not an objective unbiased historian by any stretch of the words.

Aside from the 'Aryan' superiority claimed by Hitler, and Burn's assertion that Germany wanted revenge for the outcome of world war one and the reparations imposed, Hitler went to war against Gypsies, Jews and Black people as, 'inferior' races that should be eliminated.

Again, Ken Burns is very subtle and sophisticated in his presentations. His apologetic approach to the 'heroic' people of the Soviet Union ignored the. at time, current history, of Joseph Stalin and his brutal treatment of the Russian people.

Stalin's pleadings that the Allies open a second front by invading the south coast of France in 1942 and '43, was ignored for political reasons, according to Burns, as Roosevelt, for political reasons, ignored his Generals and instead planned for the North African campaign.

There was also the quiet criticism of the United States in that East and Gulf coast cities were not 'blacked out' at the beginning of the war, which, Burns said, facilitated German submarine attacks against coast shipping by outlining the vessels against the lights of the cities. The information that I had not heard before was that nearly 250 cargo vessels were destroyed during the first six months of 1942 within sight of the American coastline; I had not realized it was that extensive.

There was also criticism of the 'military unpreparedness' of the United States, which, with a population of 130 million had less than 175,000 men in uniform in the various services and that they were badly equipped and trained.

Democrats who are traditionally isolationist and pacifist, then and now, had been in control of Congress and the White House for most of the 1930's and as Democrats do, decimated the military and provided small budgetary support for equipment replacement and the implementation of newer weapons and technology.

On the other side of the world, says Burns, the Japanese Empire was being strangled economically by the United States and the British, French and Dutch Colonial outposts throughout Asia and was attempting to secure raw material sources for their own economy for their own best national interests.

Burns also concentrated heavily on the American incarceration of Japanese American civilians in cities along the west coast and on the shame of the continuing segregation of black and white in the armed forces and the refusal to accept Japanese Americans into the US Military.

Ken Burns is essentially a Marxist, believing as many historians and associated intellectual did and still do, that capitalism in fated to evolve into socialism and would have had it not been for the United States.

Despotism, if the forms of Nazism, Fascism and Communism, are all apples and thus comparable with the caveat that the apples are from slightly different species of trees, but all remain apples.

Burns continues to express his Marxist, 'class struggle' theology by attributing all the good things about America to the common service man and the common people and denigrating or ignoring both the political, economic and military leaders and their roles in the conflict and the preparations.

It was the 'Hollywood Stars', that went across the country on 'War Bond' drives that financed the war effort, according to Burns.

There was great attention paid to the tragedy of the Philippines, the fall of Bataan and Corregidor and the surrender of 78,000 American and Philippino soldiers, the greatest number in American history and the so called promise to rescue those soldiers with ships and men sent from the United States and the denigration of, 'Dugout Doug', General MacArthur, who was transported to Australia, leaving his men behind with no hope.

So, yes, jomar, an interesting program, but PBS and Burns have been presenting this tripe for years now and it needs be taken with a grain of salt with the base motivations scrutinized.

Amicus...

 

[jomar]

~~~

Hello, jomar, thanks for the thread...I was going to make mention of the program as I too watched the first installment last evening and may or may not watch the rest and I too join in your appreciation for those who served.


So, yes, jomar, an interesting program, but PBS and Burns have been presenting this tripe for years now and it needs be taken with a grain of salt with the base motivations scrutinized.

Amicus...

Hello Amicus, you're welcome.

Whatever Burn's politics are, and I assume he is liberal, he makes good documentaries. And you're right, we should watch them with a critical eye. At least he is far more balanced than Michael Moore, who films editorials "disguised" as documentaries.

 

[Weird Harold]

Isn't it like 13 hours?

The listing for next Sunday's marathon presentation shows five 90 minute episodes which is only seven and and a half hours. The daily episodes run two episodes last night (Sunday) and one 90 minute episode the next three days (Mon, Tues and Wednesday.)

I don't know if that is the entire series or just the first half.

So far, I'm not impressed -- it's a very ameri-centric series and basically ignores the first ten years of war because the US wasn't directly involved.

It's well done for what it covers, but it chooses not to cover a LOT of important context.

 

[cloudy]

The listing for next Sunday's marathon presentation shows five 90 minute episodes which is only seven and and a half hours. The daily episodes run two episodes last night (Sunday) and one 90 minute episode the next three days (Mon, Tues and Wednesday.)

I don't know if that is the entire series or just the first half.

So far, I'm not impressed -- it's a very ameri-centric series and basically ignores the first ten years of war because the US wasn't directly involved.

It's well done for what it covers, but it chooses not to cover a LOT of important context.

Didn't you get the memo?

We're the only country that matters.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Didn't you get the memo?

We're the only country that matters.

The memo was only distributed internally.


Naturally.

 

[amicus]

Apparently you blokes did not watch the program. Coverage of the war began in the 1930's in both Europe and Asia, with emphasis on Japanese atrocities in China, and tragic film footage of refugees from Belgium and Italy's thrust into Ethiopia, plus the usual British suffering during the London Blitz, long before the USA became involved.

But then, facts never even slows you down when you find an opportunity to criticize anything American.

Typical usual suspects foaming at the mouth.

Amicus...

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

It's well done for what it covers, but it chooses not to cover a LOT of important context.

How many books and documentaries have been written and made for WWII? I can't answer that but I know there are a lot of them.

You are correct in pointing out that Ken Burns has Americanized the war for his documenary. But that goes with the perameters of the territory he set out with - The story of the war as told by the survivors in only four towns in America. Would it have been better if he had included a French Village, a Polish town or London? Maybe, but would it have fit within the time constraints allowed him on PBS?

I sincerely doubt that anyone could do a single presentation and tell the entire story of the seven years of WWII from eveyone's perspective.

 

[Grushenka]

The listing for next Sunday's marathon presentation shows five 90 minute episodes which is only seven and and a half hours. The daily episodes run two episodes last night (Sunday) and one 90 minute episode the next three days (Mon, Tues and Wednesday.)

I don't know if that is the entire series or just the first half.

So far, I'm not impressed -- it's a very ameri-centric series and basically ignores the first ten years of war because the US wasn't directly involved.

It's well done for what it covers, but it chooses not to cover a LOT of important context.

Thank you for this. I'm also not impressed for other reasons. The music throughout is annoying (obvious and overpowering too often), much of the narrative cloying, and the pace sluggish. I am not a WWII buff, but I've read a good deal of world history and I learned nothing new during last night's 2+ hours. If the next hour doesn't improve I'll chuck it in.

 

[sr71plt]

Isn't it like 13 hours?

My TV guide yesterday said it was 14 and a half hours. I'm sure it will be available on DVD fairly quickly. I think I'd like to see it that way, without the week-long intervals. I think the impact will be greater. Burns is a terrific visual historian.

 

[trysail]

My TV guide yesterday said it was 14 and a half hours. I'm sure it will be available on DVD fairly quickly. I think I'd like to see it that way, without the week-long intervals. I think the impact will be greater. Burns is a terrific visual historian.

It's already available on DVD. Go to http://www.PBS.org . I'm proud to say that my pal did some of the filming, as he's done for all of Burns' documentaries. Ken Burns has Baltimore roots.

 

[sr71plt]

It's already available on DVD. Go to http://www.PBS.org . I'm proud to say that my pal did some of the filming, as he's done for all of Burns' documentaries. Ken Burns has Baltimore roots.

Thanks for the information. We see him a lot down here in C'ville too.

 

[trysail]

Amicus...

There are times I think you're way off-base; this is one of 'em.

First off, you need to remember that the film was made for an American audience and for PBS. Translation: to secure funding and to ensure a widespread audience, all the politically correct bases have to be touched. That's just the way it is.

For better or worse, Ken Burns never would have emerged, at all, were it not for PBS. Nobody ever would have funded his initial efforts.

Secondly, it ain't exactly easy saying something about WWII that hasn't already been said or that isn't already known by a broad swath of Americans. Let's face it, the folk who are unable to locate Missouri on a map of the U.S. aren't watching PBS.

Diversity is an American strength. I think the Tuskegee airman deserve mention; I think they were heroes. Daniel Inoye deserves recognition as a war hero; let's not forget that he almost wasn't allowed to serve. The Navajo "code talkers" were also heroes. "Rosie the Riveter" played her part, too, and deserves recognition.

As was made clear in the film, it wasn't Roosevelt who was adamantly against a 1943 European invasion- it was Churchill. Kasserine Pass proved him right; the American troops were green.

Yes, "Uncle Joe" was a vicious murderering thug (but, remember that the extent of his crimes wasn't widely known at the time) and, in war, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

 

[amicus]

Trysail, you do show some familiarity with the history, unlike most here but your conclusions leave room for doubt.

Might I suggest that the History Channel and the Military Channel offer documentary evidence of that era without government support, at least to my knowledge they are not tax supported.

And I disagree with you as I do shereads when it comes to the ability of an American audience to appreciate quality, I think you both under-rate the people of this nation.

Diversity is an American strength.

You won't find me arguing against diversity, not at all, my point about the broadcast was that the narrative disdained the administrative effort by business and industry and our military leaders while glorifying the front line soldiers; I merely suggest such an endeavored needed both.

Amicus...

 

[jomar]

Well, part two got Rosie and industry efforts including Ford rolling out bombers every 63 minutes.

So far I still think it's well done series. (I also really liked Band of Brothers.)

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Democrats who are traditionally isolationist and pacifist, then and now, had been in control of Congress and the White House for most of the 1930's and as Democrats do, decimated the military and provided small budgetary support for equipment replacement and the implementation of newer weapons and technology.

Ami, your GOP bias is showing.

It was a Republican controlled Congress that raised tariffs, closed the door to most immigrants and killed American participation in the League of Nations following the end of WW I.

It was the Republican party that lead the America-First isolationist movement in the 1930's. Even with the Democrats controlling congress, Roosevelt had to pull every string he had to get the draft cranked up in 1940 (for one year) and then extended in 1941(by one vote).

As Bob Dole noted, America was lead into WW I, WW II, Korea, and Vietnam by Democratic presidents.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[SimpleGifts]

It's well done for what it covers, but it chooses not to cover a LOT of important context.

That's a criticism you can make of any Ken Burns documentary. Or any documentary. Even with 15 hours, there's just so much you can talk about. His documentary "Jazz" was probably the most egregious in what he chose to omit, but that was virtually a film of the Marsalis family's version of jazz, so the bias wasn't surprising.

I read a lot of WWII history growing up but I also learned a few new things. For what he does cover, he covers it in a very comprehensive and humanizing fashion.

SG

 

[SimpleGifts]

For better or worse, Ken Burns never would have emerged, at all, were it not for PBS. Nobody ever would have funded his initial efforts.

Amen. You can criticize the guy all you want--the work he produces shows an incredible dedication, and he provides a valuable education for viewers. I don't even mind that he's turned himself into a "brand"--the guy produces some quality stuff.

Diversity is an American strength. I think the Tuskegee airman deserve mention; I think they were heroes. Daniel Inoye deserves recognition as a war hero; let's not forget that he almost wasn't allowed to serve. The Navajo "code talkers" were also heroes. "Rosie the Riveter" played her part, too, and deserves recognition.

One of the few memorable moments of the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration was when the ranking Republican of the investigation committee--can't remember who it was offhand--made an extemporaneous speech criticizing all those who had written letters questioning Inouye's patriotism, since Inouye chaired the committee. The Republican then gave an account of how Inouye was injured during the War and why he was awarded his medal. It was a very moving speech, with a Senator from one party honoring a Senator from another party in a very profound way.

SG

 

[rgraham666]

Ami, your GOP bias is showing.

It was a Republican controlled Congress that raised tariffs, closed the door to most immigrants and killed American participation in the League of Nations following the end of WW I.

It was the Republican party that lead the America-First isolationist movement in the 1930's. Even with the Democrats controlling congress, Roosevelt had to pull every string he had to get the draft cranked up in 1940 (for one year) and then extended in 1941(by one vote).

As Bob Dole noted, America was lead into WW I, WW II, Korea, and Vietnam by Democratic presidents.

Rumple Foreskin

Damn it, Rumple. What are you doing?

Messing up a perfectly good mythology with actual history. The nerve.

 

[amicus]

Well, part two got Rosie and industry efforts including Ford rolling out bombers every 63 minutes.

So far I still think it's well done series. (I also really liked Band of Brothers.)

Watched part two also, jomar...Ford and the bombers every 63 minutes reminded me of someone, perhaps on another thread, saying American factories were idle from the depression when the war started, yet the Ken Burns thing said three million automobiles were manufactured in 1940, the year before America entered the war.

Please do not take this as an apology for my differing opinions and, 'take' on history, for it is not. Further, I have enjoyed many programs on PBS, including Charlie Rose that I often mention, River Dance, Celtic Woman; I also watch history and science channels, military channel, national geographic, each and every channel that has to do with history or science in any area and NASA channel, every day, hoping for something new.

I am currently re-reading a book, edited by F.A. Hayek, "Capitalism and the Historians", which confirms my opinion that history is clouded by ideology and it seeps from from every venue I find.

Ken Burns is just one of many historians and political scientists, who inject Marxist Class Struggle ideology into his presentations of historical events, I know, I ran into several in my college years.

Burns injected into Episode two, more references to women, blacks and the incarceration of the Japanese during the early years of the war. Even you, who do not want to see, did, by your mention of "Rosie the Riveter", Kassarine Pass, pointing out the hapless American forces was also featured again for reasons I leave for you to determine.

There was not much new in the second part, if one has watched historical films of the era before, although the less than 40 day conquest of Sicily was a number I had not heard before.

I will probably continue to watch the series, hoping to see a different perspective than I have seen before and to learn, as always.

The music, someone dissed in an earlier post, except for the weepy violin stuff, is period stuff and very familiar and I think sets a proper tone for the history.

Amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

I sometimes look at your posts just to see if you're as I recall.

You are.

However, it's early in the morning, my insomnia is kicking up and I'm in a silly mood. So I'm going to reply to this post.

I am a bit of a student of the second world war and watch about everything that is presented and there was some new footage of combat and it was enjoyable to see so much of 1930's and 1940's America and British scenery and peoples included, the people, the buildings, the automobiles and of course the music chosen to accompany the video was good to hear.

Considering some of the other statements on this thread you're accurate in your assessment of your historical knowledge. It is a 'bit'.

But that is about the end of the 'good' things I have to say about Ken Burns or the Public Broadcasting Network that produced and aired the program.

I had intended to search a biography of Burns and do a piece on this program, but my usual offerings are often ignored so I chose not to invest the time.

Ken Burns is a closet, and very subtle socialist and much of the narrative illustrates his political and philosophical underpinnings, he is not an objective unbiased historian by any stretch of the words.

That's a fascinating assertion. Have you any facts to back it up?

Aside from the 'Aryan' superiority claimed by Hitler, and Burn's assertion that Germany wanted revenge for the outcome of world war one and the reparations imposed, Hitler went to war against Gypsies, Jews and Black people as, 'inferior' races that should be eliminated.

I'd like to reply to this, but it seems incomplete to me. And not related to your assertion that Burns is a Marxist. The beginning and the end of the sentence also state basically the same thing.

Again, Ken Burns is very subtle and sophisticated in his presentations. His apologetic approach to the 'heroic' people of the Soviet Union ignored the. at time, current history, of Joseph Stalin and his brutal treatment of the Russian people.

So because Stalin and his clique were murderous jerks, even worse than Hitler in my opinion, we should ignore what happened to the Russians? They lost 20 million people in that war, ten percent of their population. They fought the largest tank battle of the War at Kursk, and beat the Germans. They fought for every brick of Stalingrad and starved in the hundreds of thousands in Leningrad.

I think this should be acknowledged regardless of Stalin.

Stalin's pleadings that the Allies open a second front by invading the south coast of France in 1942 and '43, was ignored for political reasons, according to Burns, as Roosevelt, for political reasons, ignored his Generals and instead planned for the North African campaign.

In 1942, Britain landed a mostly Canadian force at Dieppe , to test what it would take to land a major force on the Continent. As the link shows they were slaughtered.

When the Continent was invaded, the Allies struck at a place the Germans didn't expect. They attacked with five divisions with proper landing equipment and massive naval and air backup. At the end of the day they were only a few miles inland, at best. At Omaha they almost got thrown back.

By the end of July the Allies had a five to one advantage in men and much larger in equipment. It still took them until the second week in August to breakout.

The Allies could not have done it in 1942 or 43. They simply didn't have what it took.

They could fight in North Africa, where the Axis presence was much smaller.

There was also the quiet criticism of the United States in that East and Gulf coast cities were not 'blacked out' at the beginning of the war, which, Burns said, facilitated German submarine attacks against coast shipping by outlining the vessels against the lights of the cities. The information that I had not heard before was that nearly 250 cargo vessels were destroyed during the first six months of 1942 within sight of the American coastline; I had not realized it was that extensive.

Burns was wrong to criticize this foolishness? The U-boat men called this 'The Happy Time'.

And look at that! You learned something.

There was also criticism of the 'military unpreparedness' of the United States, which, with a population of 130 million had less than 175,000 men in uniform in the various services and that they were badly equipped and trained.

This is true. But the Roosevelt administration was working very hard to change this. Most of the resistance to this came from isolationists, who tended to be Republican.

Democrats who are traditionally isolationist and pacifist, then and now, had been in control of Congress and the White House for most of the 1930's and as Democrats do, decimated the military and provided small budgetary support for equipment replacement and the implementation of newer weapons and technology.

I recall that although Roosevelt was a Democrat, the House tended to be Republican at this time.

And Roosevelt, as I said, was working to get America's weakness rectified. He had a good idea of what was coming. Anybody with a working brain could.

There were plans to expand the Navy so that it could fight in both oceans. Many of the weapons that were used in the War were designed and built during this time. Among them the P-51 Mustang, the P-47 Thunderbolt, the F4U Corsair and the F6F Hellcat. The M4 Sherman and M5 Stuart tanks started to come into service. On the line were Iowa class battleships and Lexington class carriers.

That these plans were in effect was, in my opinion, one of the main reasons the US managed to get into the war so quickly.

On the other side of the world, says Burns, the Japanese Empire was being strangled economically by the United States and the British, French and Dutch Colonial outposts throughout Asia and was attempting to secure raw material sources for their own economy for their own best national interests.

Everything I've read on the subject backs up this statement. The Japanese had already been at war for a decade in China.

In reaction, the Western nations were cutting back raw materials delivery, which the Japanese absolutely needed to continue the war, or even as an industrial nation. Plus the megalomaniacs running the place at the time wouldn't back down for fear of losing face. They also didn't have much control of their army. It's doubtful the Japanese government could have stopped the war in China. And they probably would have been murdered if they tried. More than a few politicians were assassinated when they did things that weren't popular with the army.

Burns also concentrated heavily on the American incarceration of Japanese American civilians in cities along the west coast and on the shame of the continuing segregation of black and white in the armed forces and the refusal to accept Japanese Americans into the US Military.

Are you saying he shouldn't have? Why? Were these not bad things to do?

Ken Burns is essentially a Marxist, believing as many historians and associated intellectual did and still do, that capitalism in fated to evolve into socialism and would have had it not been for the United States.

And you say this why? You have proof of this?

Despotism, if the forms of Nazism, Fascism and Communism, are all apples and thus comparable with the caveat that the apples are from slightly different species of trees, but all remain apples.

On this we are agreed.

Burns continues to express his Marxist, 'class struggle' theology by attributing all the good things about America to the common service man and the common people and denigrating or ignoring both the political, economic and military leaders and their roles in the conflict and the preparations.

Again, what makes you say this?

It was the 'Hollywood Stars', that went across the country on 'War Bond' drives that financed the war effort, according to Burns.

So? From what I gathered this show concentrated on how the war effected four small American towns. I don't see what Hollywood stars would have to do with this.

There was great attention paid to the tragedy of the Philippines, the fall of Bataan and Corregidor and the surrender of 78,000 American and Philippino soldiers, the greatest number in American history and the so called promise to rescue those soldiers with ships and men sent from the United States and the denigration of, 'Dugout Doug', General MacArthur, who was transported to Australia, leaving his men behind with no hope.

And this was wrong of Mr. Burns to do, why? And how does it prove his 'Marxist' leanings?

So, yes, jomar, an interesting program, but PBS and Burns have been presenting this tripe for years now and it needs be taken with a grain of salt with the base motivations scrutinized.

Amicus...

Those 'base motivations' have yet to be developed with any evidence.

Still, the show sounds interesting. I've always liked Burns work. I will check with my library shortly to see if I can borrow a copy.