Quote from: lentulus on 23 December 2010, 03:47:23 AM
I think a bit much, in this case.  On the other hand, if Roosevelt was acting in any other than long term US interests, he was not doing his job.  He was also (IIRC) less than a fan of European colonialism and not reflexively anti-communist so the post-war outcomes might have been different in interesting ways if he had held on a bit longer.

Which also poses the question of how the post war world would have looked if FDR had lived longer?  Read somewhere that the US attitude to Stalin changed quite significantly to Stalin under Truman.  Would FDR have allowed the European powers to regain their colonies?  The OSS were supplying / encouraging Ho Chi Minh until the French with UK support decided they wanted Indo China back.

This is a nice little can of worms opened up here.  It seems that even the direst movie can open up debate.  By dire, of course I mean little inaccuracies that bother anyone such as myself.  You know bits like 'est. 1953' on one of the buildings, no one smoking on a military base, Jap planes painted green so that audiences could differentiate the "good guys from the bad guys" (big red circle usually done that).  That sort of thing.

I'm just glad that on the 24th December 2006 we finally paid off the invoice the US gave us (at good rates, I admit). 

Quote from: Leveller Mutineer on 27 December 2010, 05:15:27 PM
You know bits like 'est. 1953' on one of the buildings

I noticed that as well!  And when the car they're in gets strafed on the runway, wouldn't that have torn the car to pieces, as opposed to a bit of cosmetic damage?

A single American pilot winning the Battle of Britain for us got me...   

Quote from: Luddite on 27 December 2010, 06:46:03 PM
A single American pilot winning the Battle of Britain for us got me...   

THAT AND TWO FIGHTER PILOTS FLYING TWIN ENGINED BOMBERS 

O yeah, "Pearl Harbour" and "U 571" films were total crap. I cant understand how could American war movies  fall so low from the times of "Platoon"?