However, the fact still stands that Hanks lacks an integrated personality if he can represent both an hostility to American self-defense as well as a sympathetic understanding of military sacrifice during WWII. This is supported by recent studies on Moslems in Germany who exhibit compasion for individual human suffering when it is not that of an "infidel", although showing egregious alienation from non-Muslim–e.g. Jewish–suffering. The analogy here is to the "liberal" bias of Hanks' and the Koranic indoctrination of German (European) Muslims. As I write this, it is a painful realization that so many otherwise blameless and innocent liberals who think as Hanks' does, could otherwise be capable of enormous harm to their own country and countrymen….

FACT IS —having made BILLIONS upon BILLIONS these past
decades outsourcing, and unflinchingly catering to the franchise-slum
denial needs of historys's —MOST— awesomely genocidal regime EVER
—-in their 'fave' captive mass market —ACROSS the Pacific
-Hollywood is continuing to hide from the gagrgantuan moral implications
of it all behind ad nauseum, anachronistic PC WWII retreads
—even on this! –the once again 'mysteriously overlooked'
60th Anniversary of the truly epic, genuinely relevant —indeed
—STILL unfolding ————–KOREAN WAR!

—STOP being such EASY set-ups folks! —it's getting dangerous!

AMEN

But, again, keep in mind: The heroes of these films are the 82nd and 101st Airborne, not Spielberg, and not Tom Hanks. I'm sure they, if you asked them, would share these sentiments. My point is this: When Steven Spielberg first approached Tom Hanks about a World War Two drama ("Private Ryan"), he wanted to "make a real kick-ass war movie" (-an actual quote), not necessarily honor the heroes of World War Two, although that was a nice add-in. Spielberg is an entertainer, one step up from vaudeville, as is Hanks, and we should be very careful about mistaking the actors art with the heroes valor. And we should be vigilant to recall this from time to time, and take whatever Tom Hanks might (or might not) say with a grain or two of salt.

And do our own historical research and analysis.

You may reply to me directly if you wish, just google my name.

So yeah…"Zzzzzzzzz"

Villages holding out any of their harvest to the Japanese or even suspected of giving rice to the guerillas were massacred and burned. They would do the same thing to the nearest village to any guerilla activity. The Japanese rationed to each villager barely enough of their own harvest to keep them from starving. Conquered subjects weak from near starvation cause less trouble. Needless to say, the guerillas lived off monkeys, birds, snakes, lizards, and finally bugs and grubs, for 3 years.

You seem to have as little understanding of history and the Japanese as they (with a few notable exceptions, like Yamamoto) did of us. Perhaps you should expand your history reading beyond commie professors of "Political Economy ." Where or when wasn't the Japanese resistance "unconditional?" Where and when wasn't their offense "unconditional," for that matter?

The list goes on, but, surprisingly there were few prosecutions for these war crimes, certainly fewer than the Nuremburg trials. I guess we were so racist that we decided not to prosecute the "Yellow, buck-tooth bastards" rather than the white Germans.

I wish Mr. Hanks could've talked to my dad when he was alive. He served in New Guinea and the Phillipines and weighed 90 pounds when he came home. And he was not a prisoner.