Talk:Why We Fight
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
About Tanaka Memorial
editPlease check out the entry of "Tanaka, Giichi" of Encyclopaedia of Britannica, The Columbia Encyclopedia, and so on.
They say Tanaka Memorial "has been shown to be a forgery", "proven to be a forgery", and so on.Kadzuwo 22:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"the seven films"
editThere are eight films listed. The Negro Soldier was the last added, so I guess it wasn't actually one of the originals? --Kiand 16:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I have never heard of "The Negro Soldier." I bought a boxed set of these, which contained seven films. Desegregation is never mentioned in the seven, and I know that the army was not desegregated until 1948, after the war was over.
"The Negro Soldier" was a 1944 War Department film encouraging African-Americans to enlist. It is unrelated to the "Why We Fight" series.- mobo85
The Internet Archive has 8 Why We Fight films available for download here: http://www.archive.org/details/cinemocracy. They also have 5 other related films from other directors. -- Hoosemon (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Missed essential subjects
editThe article includes the word "propaganda" 15 times, in the body and from the sources. However, the purpose of the films as described by Capra, Chief of Staff Marshall, and most of the other sources involved with the creation, making, and distribution of the films never used that word. Nor are their statements cited anywhere. They generally and consistently used terms "war training films" and "war information films." Neither the word "training" or "information" is mentioned in the article. In fact, the stated purposes for the films, according to them, was to "counter" the hundreds of real propaganda films created by the Axis powers after WWI. Is there some need for balance in the use of the more subjective purposes, verses the objective impressions that the article focuses on, including the first sentence? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've changed the it back to "documentary" from propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.243.98 (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Totally disagree. How many times do you see the word "propaganda" in Pravda's stated purpose? Yet I doubt anyone would disagree Pravda was a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin. The owners of a spade will never call it a spade. I don't think referencing it as propaganda every time it's mentioned is apt, but treating American "war information films" as Holy Gospel is very, very silly and shows a strong American bias. 96.54.86.78 (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's fine to disagree and state your personal opinion. But unless it's cited, labeling something as "propaganda" needs a source, otherwise it's OR. Especially if used in the lead. --Light show (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- And if someone asked for a citation that the Volkswagen Jetta was indeed a car? There's nothing OR about calling "a film series intended to convince a population of the "neccessity of fighting a war"" propoganda — that's a synonym. Of course, if that doesn't please your highness, perhaps the citations later in the article stating that the series was essentially in lockstep with Soviet propoganda? You don't need a citation that the sky is blue, and right now this article has massive POV issues from the American side. 96.54.86.78 (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- The films were made by the U.S., which was then in the war, hence the title, Why We Fight. Had it been on the sidelines, a title like, Why We Sit and Watch, would have been from a different POV. The POV is implied. --Light show (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- And if someone asked for a citation that the Volkswagen Jetta was indeed a car? There's nothing OR about calling "a film series intended to convince a population of the "neccessity of fighting a war"" propoganda — that's a synonym. Of course, if that doesn't please your highness, perhaps the citations later in the article stating that the series was essentially in lockstep with Soviet propoganda? You don't need a citation that the sky is blue, and right now this article has massive POV issues from the American side. 96.54.86.78 (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's fine to disagree and state your personal opinion. But unless it's cited, labeling something as "propaganda" needs a source, otherwise it's OR. Especially if used in the lead. --Light show (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Totally disagree. How many times do you see the word "propaganda" in Pravda's stated purpose? Yet I doubt anyone would disagree Pravda was a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin. The owners of a spade will never call it a spade. I don't think referencing it as propaganda every time it's mentioned is apt, but treating American "war information films" as Holy Gospel is very, very silly and shows a strong American bias. 96.54.86.78 (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement needing verification
editThis sentence from the first paragraph in the lead has some issues that should be clarified before it's used due to its importance:
"Most Scholars agree the film is a prime example of ethical propaganda." [1] [2]
- "Most scholars" needs explanation. What kind of scholars? Was a survey made to conclude it was "most" of them?
- The term "ethical propaganda" is not quoted, but should be if it was used by someone, and that person should be named. Otherwise it reads as OR.
- The sources are a problem: the first one can't be accessed and the second one is a dead link.
- The concept of "ethical propaganda" should first be incorporated into the body, and probably expanded to explain more about this unique term, since the lead is used to summarize text already covered in the body. --Light show (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It's an absurd statement. Why We Fight is FULL of misrepresentations, from beginning to end.
For one thing, it relies heavily on Hermann Rauschning's Conversations with Hitler, which was exposed as a fraud by Wolfgang Haenel in 1983.
Beyond that, Capra also misrepresents film-clips. For example, he uses a scene of the Kuomintang executing some Communists as an alleged representation of Japanese atrocities. This was not a Japanese atrocity; it was Chinese killing other Chinese. Here's a video that somebody made to prove it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LbVeadjSbo
It is certain that Capra also used actors for some scenes. The Japanese officer spliced into the scene of Chinese shooting Chinese has to be an actor.
There's nothing "ethical" about Capra's propaganda. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Xifra, J., & Girona, R. (2012) Frank Capra's Why We Fight and film documentary discourse in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 40-45. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.003
- ^ L’Etang, J. (1999). John Grierson and the public relations industry in Britain. Screening the past: An international electronic journal of visual media and history. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fr0799/jlfr7d.htm.
Propaganda Films
editThese are clearly propaganda films, intended to convey a political message to the audience. It follows that they are called such in this article.
Frank Capra#Why We Fight series does its utmost to disconnect the series from dastardly "propaganda" films, calls them documentary. Could someone so inclined please correct the mistake? - 91.10.20.193 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Some Footnotes, unrelated to the section above this
editn/t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.20.193 (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
In order to justify the Western Allies' alliance with the Soviet Union, the series omitted many facts, which could have cast doubts on the "good guy" status of the Soviets, such as the Nazi–Soviet alliance, Soviet invasion of Poland; but it shows the the pact signing and the USSR invasion of Poland
editat 24:83 it shows the the molotov-ribbentrop pact sighing and at 37:54 it shows the Soviet invasion of Poland to so its not a ww2 propaganda film so I will fix this page up Jack90s15 (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-y_oz06_cQ&index=2&list=PLugwVCjzrJsXwAiWBipTE9mTlFQC7H2rU Jack90s15 (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
To exonerate the Soviets, the series casts even less important Allies, like the Poles, in the bad light, even repeating Nazi propaganda claims such as the Tuchola Forest myth or false claims about the Polish Air Force being destroyed on the ground but at 29:33 they say that planes did get of the ground and fight and does not show at in the Why We Fight: The Nazis Strike polish Cavalry charging at Tanks so I will fix this all and the only one that To exonerate the Soviets is the Why We Fight: The Battle of Russia that one does not talk about Soviet occupation of the Baltic States, Winter War Jack90s15 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrKDBFJoo2w&t=4251s Jack90s15 (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
the full film the battle of Russia is in 3 parts can not find the full film
editI added the full film the battle of Russia it is in 3 parts not find the full film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)