Kai Hagen said:
It depends on how you look at it. For the people in that region, the fighting started before 1939. Of course, I'm not saying that it caused the conflict in Europe.
I never accused you of making such a claim. Certainly, there was fighting in Asia before 1939 but it didn?t cause outside nations to declare war in defence of either side. Had you written something like,
?Fighting began in Asia before WWII began in Europe?, I wouldn?t have opposed. So it really ?depends? on
how you say it.
Kai Hagen said:
Well those stories didn't become a film. So the Temple of Doom would've been the best chance to see the Japanese military.
?
Tales of the Gold Monkey? isn?t an Indiana Jones story. It?s a TV series from 1982-83.
If you?re into seeing a WW2-era-leather-jacket-wearing adventurer who confronts the Japanese army & navy & air force, then I highly suggest checking it out!
Kai Hagen said:
Are you Steven Spielberg? Why are you being so sensitive about this?
Because I?m a sensitive guy.
Seriously, your comment came across as if the film wasn?t good enough because it ?left out? the Japs. There?s only so much that can be crammed into 13 minutes but you wanted both the Japanese navy AND its air force involved? It seems like you?d prefer ?Doom? to have the prologue set in India with the rest of the film in China.
dr.jones1986 said:
I didn't mean for it to come off that I was agreeing with the lack of the Japanese Military being shown on screen (though they are mentioned) as a fault of the film. I love TOD and I love the villains. I was just agreeing that it would have been cool to see Indy battle the Imperial Japanese on screen. Too bad Harrison is now to old for a WWII set Indy film. You did mention some examples in other media and you could add the novel "Secret of the Spinx" to that list.
Yes, indeed, ?it would have been cool?. (Kai Hagen should?ve used that phrase instead.)
Forgot about ?Secret of the Sphinx?. Nice addition!
dr.jones1986 said:
I know, like me you also have a passion for military history (I actually teach social studies for a living). So I was just saying that he isn't off base with that comment and I didn't mean to imply that you lacked knowledge on the subject or argument he was trying to make. You could argue the Second Sino-Japanese war that started in 1937 eventually became a part of the global struggle we call WWII. The German invasion of Poland is usually considered the start of WWII but even at that time it was primarily relegated to Western and Central Europe. It really didn't became a global struggle until 1941 with the war spreading to North Africa, USSR and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which linked to two conflicts together. I know you are familiar with all this so it wasn't meant to imply you lacked knowledge on the subject.
No offence taken so don?t worry. If I ever get back to Long Island again, we?ll go for a beer, yes?
There's no argument that the Japanese-Chinese War became absorbed into the larger picture but it was not the basis of WW2. That said, I must come down on you hard for thinking that things didn't get "global" until 1941. Several non-European nations declared war straight away in Sept. 1939 (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia, India, Nepal, etc.) so it was global from the get-go. As for geography, WW2 had already spread outside of Europe by 1940: to Africa (North, East & West), the Middle East and French Indochina. Heck, how ?bout the famous Battle of the River Plate? That was South America in 1939!
dr.jones1986 said:
I also would have loved to see more of the British Raj and an even longer dance number to start the film would have been fine by me!
Apart from the British Raj, I was joking about the rest. Kind of like saying:
I would've liked
Crusade more if it showed the U.S. cavalry & artillery in the Utah scene.
I would've liked
Raiders more if it showed (insert fantasy here) in the Peru scene.