On PBS: The War

[Tom Odom]

I wasn't suggesting that it was bad to focus only on America rather that I found it ridiculous that this project took him seven years. I was commenting that I could understand how making a documentary including all countries could take seven years, but I don't know how this took that long. Also, this was a distorted view of "America's contribuiton" due to the rather odd (frankly bizzare) choice of using 4 towns (not even one real city) which do not provide a good cross section of the backgrounds of American servicemen in the war.

Adam

Adam

All of your criticsms seemed directed at Burns and only indirectly at the film. That is ok; critics should critque what bothers them. But again it was his project and he set the parameters and secured the funding for the project. His sponsors did not mind that it took 6 or 7 years.

I have no problem with the emotionalism present in the film; I personally would hate to see it presented any other way because I grew up watching veterans deal with those same emotions. I understand them quite well.

I also liked that the interviews were honest. WWII was quite brutal and the reality was something that was out there but never really addressed. As a youngster, I read a book that was literally a combat diary and after the Bulge, there were repeated statements to the effect, "The boys aren't taking prisoners, today." One of the NCOs in my very first company as a 2LT was a grumpy but motherly Master Sergeant named Burtis. He was a Raider on Guadacanal and his comments to me matched what was said about prisoners in the "long patrol." The savagery in the Pacific especially by 1944 is not something most Americans grasp. And I think it is important that they hear it--with all the emotionalism attached to it.

Why? Because it puts today in greater context and makes the strengths of our military much clearer. I know that I use Rwanda often; sue me

But I am reminded of trying to get across to a Dep Assistant Secretary the reality of the post-genocide Rwanda. She was on a tear about reprisal killings and whether they were sanctioned by the new GOR. We did not think so and said they were to be expected. I told her that if an American infantry unit was given the mission of stabilizing their hometown and all the surviving neighbors had killed the uinit's families, the results would not be pretty. That was very much what was happening all around us in Rwanda. You cannot understand it without the emotion.

Best

Tom

[Adam L]

Adam

All of your criticsms seemed directed at Burns and only indirectly at the film. That is ok; critics should critque what bothers them. But again it was his project and he set the parameters and secured the funding for the project. His sponsors did not mind that it took 6 or 7 years.

I have no problem with the emotionalism present in the film; I personally would hate to see it presented any other way because I grew up watching veterans deal with those same emotions. I understand them quite well.

I also liked that the interviews were honest. WWII was quite brutal and the reality was something that was out there but never really addressed. As a youngster, I read a book that was literally a combat diary and after the Bulge, there were repeated statements to the effect, "The boys aren't taking prisoners, today." One of the NCOs in my very first company as a 2LT was a grumpy but motherly Master Sergeant named Burtis. He was a Raider on Guadacanal and his comments to me matched what was said about prisoners in the "long patrol." The savagery in the Pacific especially by 1944 is not something most Americans grasp. And I think it is important that they hear it--with all the emotionalism attached to it.

Why? Because it puts today in greater context and makes the strengths of our military much clearer. I know that I use Rwanda often; sue me

But I am reminded of trying to get across to a Dep Assistant Secretary the reality of the post-genocide Rwanda. She was on a tear about reprisal killings and whether they were sanctioned by the new GOR. We did not think so and said they were to be expected. I told her that if an American infantry unit was given the mission of stabilizing their hometown and all the surviving neighbors had killed the uinit's families, the results would not be pretty. That was very much what was happening all around us in Rwanda. You cannot understand it without the emotion.

Best

Tom

For the most part I agree with you. My objections come from the fact that I feel it could have been done better. My complaints about his method of getting a cross section of American servicemen o believe is justified.

"I have no problem with the emotionalism present in the film; I personally would hate to see it presented any other way because I grew up watching veterans deal with those same emotions. I understand them quite well."

I agree 100%, I have no problems with the emotion in the interviews and the documentary. What I am objecting to is certain emotional ploys in the way the documentary was constructed. I find it objectionable that someone might feel, let alone that it might be necessary for most of society, that the statements of the veterans must be accompanied by dramatics in order to achieve the appropriate reaction from the viewer. I watched the documentary to listen to thier stories and their emotions, not the directors.

"But I am reminded of trying to get across to a Dep Assistant Secretary the reality of the post-genocide Rwanda. She was on a tear about reprisal killings and whether they were sanctioned by the new GOR. We did not think so and said they were to be expected. I told her that if an American infantry unit was given the mission of stabilizing their hometown and all the surviving neighbors had killed the uinit's families, the results would not be pretty. That was very much what was happening all around us in Rwanda. You cannot understand it without the emotion."

I understand what you mean and understand why you keep going back to Rwanda. I've heard a lot of terrible stories Canadian Forces who were over there under Dallaire. (on a side not I've actually had a chance while I was in Canada to spend some time with him and I actually have a tape of an interview (or whatever it was) with him calling the middle east a "black hole" which is quite contradictory to his position as a senator)

I guess my greatest frustration is that it could have been better and documented more. One project I have been trying to get started on for the last six months or so (but moving and other things have gotten in the way) is just an attempt to document the eperience of those involved in WWII (and Korea they are getting old too.) Video technology is affordable and plentiful. I am hoping to have time to get to it in 2-3 weeks. Frankly, if anybody has any suggestions or would like to help spit ball the idea let me know. This would really be an effort like the Shoah Foundation. Today there is no excuse for our lack of documentation of our history and it is something I have to todays younger generations need.

Adam