AMERICA'S
DESTINY?
I
hated the character of Captain Doolittle, played
by left-wing nutball Alec Baldwin, almost as much as I
hated Roosevelt (clearly discernible as Jon Voight through
the pasted-on make-up): in his unctuous self-righteousness,
bromidic New Dealish sloganeering, and all-knowing smugness,
Doolittle-Baldwin seemed the virtual embodiment of Roosevelt's
America: "I know we're going to win this war,"
he says, looking adoringly at our corn-fed flying heroes,
"because of them." In entering the war, Americans
were merely fulfilling their destiny: one that tied them
irrevocably to the fate of the British empire. This was
the Rooseveltian view, and it suffuses the movie.
SEED OF DOUBT
When
Rafe goes over to England to fight in the Royal Air Force,
a British officer remarks that there's "a certain amount
of resentment of the Americans" for staying out of the
conflict, but "If there are many more back home like you,"
he says, "God help anyone who goes to war with America."
To that, Bob Kerrey's victims – not to mention thousands
of Serbs, Iraqis, and others – can only add: "Amen!"
AN
EVIL SPIRIT
As
for the old cripple himself, it was as if his malevolence
seeped through, in spite of the intentions of the actor
and director, like some evil spirit revisiting the scene
of his earthly crimes. As Roosevelt feigned shock at the
news of the attack, the look on Voight's face communicated
the purest insincerity and the pure fakery of this film
was suddenly transformed into a semblance of truth: for
earlier in the film, a military analyst is shown warning
of the imminent attack. He is not listened to, but the
seed of doubt is planted, and the thinking viewer is prompted
to wonder: how could Roosevelt not have known,
or at least suspected?
TRUTH
EMBARGO LIFTED
The
war, naturally, is shown as a noble cause, and our delayed
entry is depicted as inexplicable: yet there are contradictory
elements that pop up seemingly out of nowhere, such as
the justification for the attack voiced by the Japanese
commander, who complains that Japan "had no choice" due
to the economic strangulation of his country by the West.
The oil embargo is mentioned, and this undermines the
rah-rah tone of the rest: in this context, the Japanese
strike, when it (finally) comes – halfway through
a three-hour movie – seems less like a "sneak attack"
and more like a counterattack.
A
SENSE OF HISTORY
This
intrusion of fact into fiction really bothers liberal-left
critic Roger Ebert, who complains that "there is no
sense of history, strategy or context; according to this
movie, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because the United
States cut off its oil supply, and it was down to an 18-month
reserve. Would going to war restore the fuel sources?
Did it perhaps also have imperialist designs? The movie
doesn't say." The movie may not say, but history does:
the Japanese were fighting Stalin's allies in China, the
Kuomintang and the Chinese Communists, a military adventure
that may indeed qualify as "imperialism" – but no
more or less so than the Dutch, British, and French efforts
to hang on to their Eastasian colonies (fully supported,
I might add, by the US). This kind of imperialism Ebert
and Co. are not too interested in talking about: I wonder
if Ebert will review "Merdeka," the Japanese film extolling
the exploits of the 2,000 Japanese soldiers who volunteered
to stay behind after the war ended to help the Indonesians
fight off the Dutch and the Brits? Somehow I doubt it.
BALDWIN
DISCORDANT?
In
noting the reaction to "Pearl Harbor" across the political
spectrum, I was struck by how the lefties, like Ebert,
seem clear about the issues involving this movie and the
subject of World War II, and how the conservatives, as
usual, seem generally clueless. The best reaction on the
right, I thought, came from Lowell
Ponte, in his Frontpage column, who seemed
to like the movie because it gives us the opportunity
to contemplate the achievements of the "quiet generation"
which is now passing into history, but he is puzzled by
the casting: he wonders what Alec Baldwin, "anti-American
hyper-leftist actor and Clinton supporter," is doing in
this movie? "The presence of Alec Baldwin in this film
is so discordant, distracting, and off-putting to those
with memory," writes Ponte. "He is literally the skunk
at what should have been our positive collective memory
of a great moment in American and cinematic history."
But for those whose memory extends beyond the last presidential
election – all the way back to the election of 1940,
in which Roosevelt promised that he would keep us out
of war – Alec Baldwin has been virtually typecast
in his role as Roosevelt's willing instrument.
HOLLYWOOD
WARMONGERS
In
1941, you see, it was the Left that was gung-ho for the
war, and the Right that fought tooth and nail to keep
us out. With German panzer divisions at the gates of Moscow,
Commies the world over (in league with Roosevelt) were
agitating day and night to get the US into the war. The
cry to open up a "second front" was heard throughout the
land, as Stalin's American amen corner launched a campaign
to drag us, by hook or by crook, into a war that would
not only save Stalin's despotic regime, but also destroy
the last vestiges of our old Republic and usher in the
Welfare-Warfare State. The Alec Baldwins of 1941 were
certainly agitating for entry into the war, and the pro-interventionist
propaganda (actively aided by British intelligence) being
churned out by Hollywood was so blatantly obvious that
antiwar Republican senators had called hearings on the
matter: indeed these were in progress on the eve of the
Pearl Harbor attack.
A
CLUNKER
Thankfully,
the self-conscious sappiness of this flick, along with
the drippy love story, makes it ineffective as propaganda.
The music was really embarrassingly deployed: every time
one of the heroes does something patriotic, the schmaltzy
notes of the movie score soar, as if reminding us that
it's time to emote. But you don't manipulate your audience
by pulling that hard on their strings: this is far likelier
to arouse resistance than patriotic fervor in any but
the most uncritical audience. I hereby withdraw my contention
that its release will prove dangerous for Japanese-Americans.
For it is far more likely to inspire its audience to fall
asleep than to go out and commit a hate crime. The main
danger of "Pearl Harbor" is to the careers of everyone
connected with this clunker.
AN
OPPORTUNITY
The
release of this movie – filled as it is with lies
from beginning to end – is an opportunity for opponents
of our globalist foreign policy. Let them replay
World War II to their heart's content, because we're more
than ready for them: by all means, let us reexamine the
events, the manipulations, the power politics and internal
machinations that dragged us into the bloodiest conflict
in world history and shaped the twentieth century: the
War Party is not likely to come out of it looking all
that good. It's interesting that Mr. Ponte, in his piece,
felt obliged to not only mention Robert Stinnett's Day
of Deceit – which shows how Roosevelt not
only knew about the attack well in advance, but also how
he did his best to provoke it. Ponte ends his piece by
stating his eloquent dissent from the conventional liberal
reading of our wartime history:
"We
should remember the 120,000 patriotic Japanese-Americans
thrown into concentration camps by 'liberal' Democrat
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose staff had received
advance warning of the attack on December 7, 1941. Why
did FDR do nothing to prevent it, nor to save American
lives?"
INQUIRING
MINDS WANT TO KNOW
Why
indeed. This is a question that thinking conservatives
– and thinking lefties, if there are any – will
be asking as the debate over the real nature, meaning,
and origins of World War II goes into high gear. And it
is bound to lead to many others, such as: what, exactly,
did our great "victory" consist of, besides saving Stalinism
from destruction and delivering half of Europe and a good
deal of Asia to the Kremlin? The renewed debate over the
whys and wherefores of World War II can only work to our
advantage: for once the facts come out, and the consequences
of that horrific conflict are weighed in the balance,
the non-interventionists of yesteryear are bound to come
out ahead – and this, in turn, bolsters our case
in the present. For the arguments for war, and America's
alleged "destiny" as the great protector and de facto
ruler of the world, may have changed in tone and emphasis
over the years, but essentially they have remained the
same: if we don't intervene, they say, then terrible
things will happen: millions will perish, the economy
will fall, and our enemies, in the end, will overthrow
us.
LET'S
GET IT ON!
Of
course, the lesson of history is that all this happened
anyway, in spite of (or, as I would contend, because
of) our entry into World War II. Millions did perish,
our economic malaise was undiminished (but masked in the
guise of wartime privations), and our old Republic was
overthrown – not by foreign invaders, but by the
enemies of human freedom right here at home. So, let the
debate begin – let's get it on! We have nothing
to lose but our illusions.
CHECK
OUT "BACKTALK"
I
want to direct your attention, while I have it, to Antiwar.com's
newest feature: "Backtalk,"
our rip-roaring no-holds-barred letters-to-the-editors
column that lets you sound off and engage in what
can only be called spirited dialogue with our editors,
columnists, and staff. The letters column, at least so
far, is one of the best features of this site: the consistent
quality of the letters received is, of course, the measure
of the high quality of our readers – even when they
respectfully (or disrespectfully) disagree with us. Believe
me, if you haven't seen it, you're missing something:
we get lots of letters and so the page is constantly filled
with new stuff: as they say, there's never a dull
moment. Thanks to letters editor Sam Koritz, whose volunteer
work on behalf of the Cause is waaaaay above and
beyond the call of duty.
Please
Support Antiwar.com
