<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Going back at least 40 years, I&#x27;ve found WWII Pacific both fascinating and, perhaps, the easiest follow. Perhaps for thi]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Pacific</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>lvrepoman</strong> — <em>9 years ago(December 07, 2016 11:08 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Going back at least 40 years, I've found WWII Pacific both fascinating and, perhaps, the easiest follow. Perhaps for this reason, The Pacific remains an an absolute favorite.  I doubt that there was any battle fought involving Americans that was so close run affair as the Guadalcanal campaign.  That battle; land, sea, and air, could have taken a small change any where along the and so profoundly have changed the war.<br />
Of course, the nature of the series limited its scope, and although I would have loved for the naval and air battles to have received some serious attention, I understand why this didn't happen.  One battle that I wish had received coverage was the Battle of Edson's, also known as "Bloody Ridge." As a "scholar" of the battle, I can hardly imagine this action being omitted from any account of the land battles.<br />
Anyone else feel this way?<br />
"He was running around like a rooster in a barnyard full of ducks."Pat Novak</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/238914/going-back-at-least-40-years-i-ve-found-wwii-pacific-both-fascinating-and-perhaps-the-easiest-follow-perhaps-for-thi</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 19:55:55 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/238914.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 09:41:08 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>