I've seen this movie so many times it became boring. However I saw this special edition THX certified for cheap resale at movie rental store, so I bought it.
Wow! The picture & sound quality are excellant. A breath of life to an old movie. I think I'll watch it again for Remembrance Day.
Anyone else have this edition?

I have it on VHS. We lose everytime. I prefer Midway.

I can still remember seeing that flick at the thater when it first came out...in "Sensurround", or whatever it was. Damn cool, the opening scene when the planes were firing up their engines, rocked the theater.

Actually, I think it was Midway...sorry.

They're both good flicks and probably the only two I can think of where they more or less get it right historically. Midway does drop the ball historically regarding the internees.

When Tora x3 came out, the subtitles were white. It was a pain to read on the many white backgrounds. The new DVDs have yellow titles. Very easy to see. Its a fine film today. When it came out, it did little business.

From "The Hollywood Hall of Shame" Medved, 1984.

Much to the chagrin of Fox president Darryl Zannuck, U.S. audiences resisted the charms of a picture that emphasized the enemy point of view in re-enacting the most disastrous episode in the history of the American military. Tora! grossed only $14.5 million domestically, so despite the fact that it proved to be a major hit in (surprise!) Japan, Fox fell at least $8 million short of breaking even.

I saw it in the theater as a kid. Thought it was brilliant. Of course, American audiences wouldn't like it. Instead, the story of one of the more compelling events in history had to be told as BACKGROUND to a typical romance (yawn). But I can't slam it too hard. I didn't see "Pearl Harbor." Didn't bother with "Titanic" either. No offense to Leo DiCaprio.

Much to the chagrin of Fox president Darryl Zannuck, U.S. audiences resisted the charms of a picture that emphasized the enemy point of view in re-enacting the most disastrous episode in the history of the American military.

Yea but it does not really do that. It shows the lead up to the attack on both sides without justifying or making excuses for the Japanese. Indeed I would say the theme of the movie is stupidity on both sides of the Pacific. The Americans were stupid for not being better prepared and the Japanese were stupid for taking on an enemy that, in retrospect, they had almost no hope of defeating.

Considering the American aircraft carriers were not at Pearl and thus escaped destruction and also that most of the damaged ships were up and running in a few months, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a huge psychological victory, but ultimately a strategic failure.

Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I am all American but if we are discussing pure strategy, the Japanese should have gone for it and invaded Hawaii. They could have controlled the Pacific, kept their supply lines open and stayed in the war much longer than they did. At the very minimum, they should have destroyed the oil depot with a second strike. I still think the inevitable outcome would have been an American victory, judging by the number of carriers and ships we produced during 1943-45.

I don't know. Hawaii is pretty far from Japan and they were already stretched thin by occupying a lot of Asia. I think the purpose of it was, as Yamamoto had advised, to hit us hard to that we would back off and let them do their thing. He knew that it was foolhardy and had only a microscopic chance of succeeding and he was right. Indeed he knew early on which is where you get the infamous 'Sleeping Tiger' remark.

Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight. In 1941, Japan did look invincible to a lot of people.

I dow know. If the American carriers had been at Pearl Harbor the war IMO would have gone very different. It was fortunate that the carriers weren't there and that is because from what I gathered from the movie is that they expected Japan to attack but didn't know where, and definitely not Peart Harbor and they sent them out on more or less a scouting mission.
If the American carriers had been there and sunk it would have taken a few months to replace and Japan would have had free reign in the pacific to do as they wished. And an invasion of the mainland was probable.

I was serving in the Air Force during the filming to Tora Tora. I even sent a day as an extra and was paid $35! Mostly stood around but was in a chow hall shot. They spend more then a year filming that thing, with restored aircraft practicing for over a year, as I recall it was the most expensive move produced up to that time.

Lefty

If the American carriers had been there and sunk it would have taken a few months to replace and Japan would have had free reign in the pacific to do as they wished.

To a large extent, yes. But only for a time.



And an invasion of the mainland was probable.

In retrospect, I just do not see how they could have pulled that off. Japan was already occupying a lot of territory including Indochina, the Philippines, Honk Kong, Korea, China and lots of islands. They did not even have full control of China as both Mao and Chiang were waging regular and irregular resistance to the Japanese forces. All of that took a lot of manpower. They were stretched very thin.

Even if they took Hawaii, moving the navy close to the mainland would have been a potential slaughter for them. And moving an invasion force onto the mainland would have been a fool's errand as every American and Canadian over 8 years old would have been shooting at them. North America is big and as the found in China, it is not easy to occupy so large a land mass, so far from home.

At best, they would have emulated Hitler's initial success in Barbarossa. Early gains and then slaughter.

I have to agree with you on that, invading the mainland would have taken considerable effort with a precarious supply line. They may have attempted it later in the war if things went favorably for them. Hawaii for sure would have been invaded and they would've had total control over the pacific with an airbase there. And there would have been nothing the US could do to stop it.
I know, I've played Axis & Allies!::D

The Japanese barely had the sea lift capacity to do what they did. Invading Hawaii was never in the cards. Invasion of the US proper is comedy material.

Again from a purely strategic perspective... An invasion of the U.S. mainland was an impossibility but an invasion of Hawaii could have been accomplished in much the same way the Phillipines was taken. By invading Hawaii, the Japanese would have lengthened U.S. supply lines making operations much more difficult. Furthermore, the Japanese would have turned Hawaii into a bigger version of Iwo Jima.

The Japanese had the vast majority of troops occupying China, which was foolish given that China could never pose the threat the Americans ultimately presented. Those forces could have been used to occupy Hawaii. And given that Hawaii is a fertile island chain, it is possible they could have sustained themselves indefinitely.

All conjecture of course.

The Japanese never had the sea lift assets to invade Hawaii... but I repeat myself.

If they saw the need for them they probably would have built more transports.While the US would have been busy trying to replace the carriers and the rest of the fleet lost at Pearl Harbor, and I doubt the American lift capacity at the start of war was all that big either. With the transports they did have that would have been sufficient to form a bridgehead capture an airfield and fly troops into Hawaii. They would have hammered the island into submission with no US air cover to oppose them, and finnish off any ships that tried to oppose them with their huge navy and at least 6 aircraft carriers.
And what would have stopped them from invading Alaska and capturing and oilfield there. I guess that's why there was the urgency to build the Alaskan Highway through the north.

"With the transports they did have that would have been sufficient to form a bridgehead capture an airfield and fly troops into Hawaii."

No disrespect intended, but, your nuts.:yes: Fly them in from where and in what aircraft??

Your in luck. Some guys have just recently gone around and around on the issue of WW 2 Japanese sea lift and industrial capacity.

http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm9.showMes sage?topicID=2519.topic

And what would have stopped them from invading Alaska and capturing and oilfield there. I guess that's why there was the urgency to build the Alaskan Highway through the north

The same thing that would have stopped all of these scenarios- distance, long supply lines, manpower and committments to territory already conquered.

The Japanese had few illusions about incorporating North America into their Empire. They wanted East Asia and parts of the Pacific in somewhat the same way that Hitler wanted Russia, but had little interest in occupying England.

To do what they wanted inevitably brought conflict with the US. Therefore, they needed a TKO move to simply have us move to the sidelines and acquiese to their interests (empire building by brutal submission). We see a similiar theme with Al Qaeda. They cannot conqueor us, but they do not want that. They want us out of the ME so they can do their thing.

I guess I was mistaken about Alaska having oil. From what I could find about Alaska the oil wasn't ready for production until 1961. So there was no benefit to them there for much needed oil.
But Alaska was a supply route for Russian Lend lease. And if they knew about that they might have wanted to put a stop to it to help the Axis cause.

Hoahao, the Japanese would have known the strategic importance of controlling Hawaii for control of the pacific. They would have done whatever they could to get troops there. It may have taken them awhile to develop airlift capability but probably would have done so when they realized the need to fly to Hawaii. In the meantime Hawaii would have had a naval blockade around it for however long it took them to occupy it and there after.

I guess I was mistaken about Alaska having oil. From what I could find about Alaska the oil wasn't ready for production until 1961. So there was no benefit to them there for much needed oil.

They already had the Dutch East Indies. Full of oil and nka Indonesia, a member of OPEC.

But the Japanese did occupy some of the Aleutians, which is technically part of Alaska.


But Alaska was a supply route for Russian Lend lease. And if they knew about that they might have wanted to put a stop to it to help the Axis cause.

Not at all. The USSR did not declare war on Japan until after the first A-Bomb was dropped, so they had no combat until the last week of the war (lucky for both, eh?). Neither could afford opening up another front with each other.

In reality, the Japanese and Germans were allies in name only. The French had a bigger claim to Axis status.

Sorry wireworm, but the Japanese had limited industrial capacity and simply stating that the Japanese will do this or do that ignores that reality. For example, flying in soldiers to Hawaii would mean designing a aircraft transport with sufficent capacity and range, and then building a LOT of them. Something similar to a DC-3 won't cut it. Try figuring what airport they would fly out of and the distance to Hawaii and you'll understand why the US transported most of it's troops to and from Europe by ship even though the Atlantic is smaller then the Pacific and the US did ferry aircraft via Greenland.

Same with a blockade of Hawaii. How does the Japanese Navy maintain and replenish so far from it's naval bases?? It can't be done without using all the Japanese have (which still is probably not enought) which limits them from invading the Phillipines or taking what is modern day Indonesia from the Dutch. It's all about logistics and the Japanese have very little.