The worst of it is, it continues to today.

And it hasn’t changed much as stupidity still hails big today.

@@howardjolley2215Yes, but the issue is much larger as the country becomes increasingly under the control of government and private bureaucracies e.g. elitist schools. And no IM NOT Maga I’m a very liberal liberal. Have faith and trust in American ability. Unfettered to as little a degree as possible by bureaucracies.

And stupidity still reigns supreme in our leadership

Gosh let's every mid level military guy have unlimited funds to play about with his pet project and lie and steal military supplies to prove his point. Because he knows he is right. And deify the chain of command.... what could possibly go wrong. The rewriting of history is strong with this one.

Steiger was so good. I just rewatched two of his best, In The Heat of the Night and his phenomenal portrayal of a psychotic movie producer in The Big Knife (Ida Lupino/Jack Palance). He became the people he played and never got the credit he deserved.

I rather think that Cooper is miscast in this role: Col. Mitchell, aged 46, was a seemingly assured peacock of a military man with a chest full of medals, whereas Cooper's a rather tired-looking 54 here -- and he acts it. - -

Carry Pooper!

...YOU STINK!!!

Brilliant idea. Because Twinkies last forever.

And still it happens.

Lt Calley was a scapegoat.

And Rod Stiger was a prosecuting attorney.

And Jack Lord, Mac garret of Hawaii 5 O. As the naval officer killed in a crash of an airship. That was Elizabeth Montgomery's first movie role. Two small roles in this film that would later be some of the biggest names in television. Also Peter Graves, and Darren McGavin, one of my personal favorites.

She was nice, too. See my earlier comment.

Hawaii50myUnclewroteepisodes4, PeterGraves"made"missionimpossable&bewhiched_wasthemostdemonicshowthatairedwheniwasakid..itwastheprecurcertothedemonshowsoftoday.

I found the accusation that the Japanese would attack was a little reaching in the movie. But that is definitely the public knowledge that Yamamoto took inspiration from. Perhaps as a greater irony to the nation attacked. As well as a military man appreciating another who's nation would not listen to the obvious.

@@geronimo5537 Yamamomo was an avid poker player according to those who knew him at Harvard so it is quite plausible they he would have played poker with the navy and army guys as they did run in similar social circles at the time.

It wasn’t the swamp that failed America in the 1930s; it was the isolationists, the Trump voters of that time.

He who doesn’t learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

The swamp protects you. trump wants to return to rule by the rich with no “swamp” to protect us.

What us the swamp. It is the law and regulatory regime that Trump wants to destroy so that he will have total power. The choice is America or TRUMP.

@user-vr7eh5zf9b....I am not quite sure who you are referring to, but the military leaders of that time who were against Mitchell's ideas are well known. If you want to listen to a good factual account of the life of Billy Mitchell, I suggest you look up a KZfaqr : Ward Carroll. He is a retired navy F-14 backseat navigator, weapons officer and has a great channel. Mr. Carroll just did a factual episode about Billy Mitchell and his court Martial.

I still don't understand how the military was caught flat-footed at Pearl Harbor in 1941, since the a Japanese attack was a virtual repeat on their attack on the Russians in 1905.

@@xzqzq , when at peace, a surprise attack has a big chance. USA was not at war, there was a group of planes expected to return to Hawaii around that time, so no radar alert, etc. Doesn't compare at all with 1905, except in strategical consideration of crippling the nearest fleet so Japan obtains time to achieve the land offensive without naval problems, then deal with the second fleet, etc. But while Russia lost 2 fleets and peaced out, USA lost hundreds of ships in WW2 and built thousands more.

I think they did that on purpose, to show that Japan took air power very seriously.

Yeah even TOP Brass can be very obtuse, traitorous to but own ego before Country safety.

Would you prefer the correct title and NOT available on YT?

Chuckling in the cemetery.

Don't forget "Hawaii Five-O"Jack Lord and "Mission Impossible" Peter Graves

Elizabeth Montgomery was one hot tamale.

That 30 years later would be American efforts to break the sound barrier. The Germans we already making those attempts before and during the war. And Germany had entered space (the first to do so) during the war with their V missiles that were exceeding the speed of sound.

@@maytagmark2171 Well sound barrier already broken the V-2 rockets.

I said that. @@flybobbie1449

Then I recommend Dive Bomber (1940). Error Flynn, Fred McMurray, Ralph Belamy and a very young USS Enterprise in her only pre-war appearance on color film.

@@vincejackson730. Thank you. I will definitely look for this.

@@vincejackson730. I don’t know all their real names but Samantha from bewitched, Steve from Hawaii 5 O, the older duke brother from Trading places, its just a few faces. I’ve never seen a more star packed film that this.

@1-st-CAV Then you will have a treat. Watch It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. Full of comedic legends. Jerry Lewis, Milton Berle, The Three Stooges (with Curly Joe), to name a few.

@@vincejackson730 Error Flynn

Baloney. Mitchell was wrong every which way. For one, he opposed aircraft carriers.

@@redskindan78 Why would oppose carriers if he foresaw Japan using them?

I'm not sure what you mean. Mitchell argued that the US did not need carriers because long range bombers could protect the continental US against any enemy. Could the USAAF B-17 force have protected Pearl Harbor against the Japanese Strike Force? @@christophercoupe5006

Baloney sandwiches! Your certainly WackoDan,not redskindan

Mitchell did not foresee anyone using aircraft carriers. The USN, the IJN, and the RN (against hostility from the RAF) believed in aircraft carriers. How many Japanese warships did the B-17 sink? A movie is not meant to be a history book. Mitchell firmly believed in high-level long-range bombers@@christophercoupe5006

Thanks for pointing that out. This leaving off of tiles and credits is teally annoying. I think you would agree.

50-50 facts and entertainment

General Mitchell and his predictions were correct. You have heard of Pearl Harbor and December 7, 1941?

@@nedhill1242 Gosh do you mean that harbor that is so popular with Japanese tourists where some Navy ships accidentally sank on December 7th? I was an Army aviator with a tour in Vietnam and I am familiar with the consequences that budgetary decisions, training doctrine and interservice rivalry can have for troops in combat. I am also by education and experience tolerably familiar with how large organizations tend to work. The Army is not a 100% top down organization, but it tends to require its officers to observe discipline, to follow orders and regulations. Then and now it is an offense use "contemptuous speech" against the President, elected state officials, and superior officers. Service members are limited in their freedom to make public comments on a range of topics. Mitchel was as bound by these rules as an PFC, He chose to disobey orders and to break the rules. What he should have done was to resign first. A man can be right, as he was, but still be wrong in the way he goes about selling his ideas, as he was. As a general officer, he knew better. The movie has has almost all of the details of the sinking of the battleship wrong. The Army adopted parachutes around the end of WW1. Plus many more plot devices added for storytelling.

Go Canadians ! ! !

Mitchell did NOT predict Pearl Harbor. The USN had practiced bombing Pearl in several Fleet Problems before WW2. The Royal Navy did it to the Italian fleet at Taranto. Mitchell opposed aircraft carriers, and would have take all the aircraft from the US Navy.

All military get their behaviour from past experiances. Things are little better today. Aircraft carriers are ok if you target a non-peer enemy, but any nuclear power can rid the earth of all aircraft carriers in one day, and I might add, that Ukraine has shown that non-peer countries, can also fight against modern navies now.

Think about WW2. Mitchell's long range high-level bombers never hit a moving warship. The Japanese Betts hit PoW and Repulse with torpedoes. The B-17s were useless againist the Japanese navy. @@Anashadk

You did! As that Lt. Commander in Pajamas.

Was that Elizabeth Montgomery, Margaret the wife of Zach the naval officer from Washington D.C.?

I think you're right!@@markroeder2491

​@@markroeder2491Yes.

Jack Lord was "Commander Lansdowne" in the first scene

I noticed that too beautiful

USN had built eight aircraft carriers by December, 1941, if we include Hornet. She was working up in the Chesapeake from Norfolk. Our navy had kept up a steady evolution of aircraft, something the Royal Navy had not been able to do during nearly 20 years when the RAF controlled all British aircraft procurement. Like Billy Mitchell, the RAF thought that aircraft carriers were unimportant. The RAF did, however, work hard at developing fighter planes, like the magnificent 8-gun Hurricane, the fighter that won the Battle of Britain. After 1938, the Fleet Air Arm had to rebuild itself almost from scratch. If Mitchell had had his way, the USN would have been as far behind as the FAA had been in 1939.

QUOTE. ''Japan had also started alliance talks with Germany by then and was engaged in empire expansion.'' That would be from a Yank textbook I take it? In 50 years of study I've seen NOTHING to suggest that, (please cite if you can). Hitler was more surprised than the Yanks by Pearl Harbor, that's a verifiable fact. Hitler finally declared War on the U.S.on December 11th, because FDR was too gutless/greedy/immoral to. (FDR wanting the U.S. to continue profiting from both Warring sides, just like today's U.S. supplying Ukraine weapons while still buying Russian Oil and Uranium) FDR and his Japanese Oil embargo made sure the Japanese had no option but to take the Dutch East Indies Oil fields/neutralize Pearl Harbor. Thus FDR (inadvertently and amateurishly) dragged the Yanks into another European War attempting to stop the Japanese Economic/Military expansion into S.E.Asia. I can understand why the Yanks keep going back to the Last War they 'Won'. It was the high point of their Military Prowess and strength, since followed by near 80 years of loss, shame, humiliation, War Crimes and Global ridicule. It also explains the U.S. current Political/ Strategic missteps and madness. ''Having been shamefully late to the last two World Wars, the Yanks are determined to be early for the next.'' Peace.

@@MicMc539 quite a diatribe...but Japan started alliance discussions with Germany in 1935.

@@STho205 ''Some guy on the Internet'' is your cite? Dumbocracy in action. Peace.

@@MicMc539 The Tripartite Pact (a.k.a. "The Pact of Steel") between Germany, Italy, and Japan was signed in Berlin on September 27, 1940. Hitler declared war on these United States on December 11, 1941 because of this pact.

@@romad357 Germany's attack on Poland, Italy's attack on Libya, and Japan's attack on the U.S. and British/Dutch Empires all occurred without ANY co-ordination between members of the Tripartite Pact. None. Regarding Japans attack, Hitler preferred to keep the U.S. neutral in Europe and advised the Japs to negotiate, which they did until the Yanks left them no choice. You must know (unlike the OP), the Yanks considered the Brits as their only Naval opponent all through the 1920's-30's? Screwing the Japanese seriously started after 3 September 1939 and finally paid off 7 December 1941.

Many of these old men were dead or retired....

The trial was in 1925 or so. Look up the fleet problems. Then look up similar wargames from every nation and you realize no one has an exclusive on being stupid... or brilliant... Mitchell wanted to get rid of the whole navy.

@@thatguyinelnorte Probably for the sake of the nation he wanted to clean out the old dead wood at the top of the Navy and Army who tried to commit their men to fight the next war like they fought the last war.... Mitchell had the vision of the future war...and he was right. It always seems arrogance to others when you are right........ and they have to admit it....

It's a big I told ya so

@juliehoffman6292, education is not a shameful thing, willful ignorance is. ALL nations practice this.

Minor error in a enthralling true story

Such things happen quite often. In the film High Road to China, the central characters fly Stampe biplanes which were designed in the late 1940s but the film is set in China in the early 1920s.

They did. That's why they named a bomber after him!

Most of the General Officers judging him were dead by then, with the exception of Douglas MacArthur of course.

Not until the attack. It was still held that the battleship was the queen of the sea. That a naval engagement would ultimately come down to the battleship. It was held that at the time, Pearl was not subjectable to torpedo attack as an air drop torpedo would drop too low. Ours did therefore no one else could either. Personally I always thought the attack was a blessing in disguise. If our fleet was out to sea with Aircraft carriers being only a support role, the loss of life would far exceed the 2400 that were killed during the attack. A full crew as 2000 per battleship give or take. Not to mention any ships lost were lost forever. Only 4 ships at Pearl did not see action by end of the war.

The Proximity Fuse and Radar had not yet invented either.

Land-based bombers did sink HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse.

Again, as I said, they were sunk by land based nells but were armed with torpedoes and flew a low level torpedo profile. The horizontal bombing attack did not score any hits. @@jrt818

I'm glad to see someone else realize this, rather than just blindly singing his praises. I respect Mitchell for standing by his convictions and his visionary look on airpower, but he as many theorist was often wrong. It is a shame what happened to him, but if he had gotten his way the USN would most likely have been ill prepared to fight a war in the Pacific in 1941. He stressed above all else, a unified air force, including naval aviation, and we see how well that worked for the British in the interwar period. They went from the leading figure in naval aviation to the 3rd ranked power in that field, as the arm would become the red headed step child of the RAF. They finally got the Fleet Air Arm back shortly before the war but the damage had been done. The RN carrier arm had very few flying officers above the rank of Commander, their doctrine was almost non existent, and they severely lacked planes and crews. Even his predicted Pearl Harbor attack which everyone credits to him, ignores that he predicted that it would be done by land based aircraft; referring to carriers at the time as a sideshow. While it's one thing to stress his fight with the old traditionalist, or the battleship admirals resistant to change. What is less stressed, is how he was opposed by those founding members and visionaries within naval aviation circles.

Only after a bloody disaster.

I’ll bet very few people even know what U a talking about. I’ve ran into kids who have no idea about the USS Oklahoma or the USS Missouri.

There would be no models of any contemporary stringbag seaplanes that would not be laughed at by the audience...

Noted but, why put it in thinking no one would notice...unless they had a crystal ball and foresaw the future.

And used by the US Navy to rescue air crews shot down off Japanese-held islands.

Was actually Scotsman in RAF Eric "winkle" Brown who was first to land and take off from a carrier.

@@user-zu2sj6wj7r had a look at Wikipedia it has Eugene Ely USA first to take off and land on a ship at anchor 1911. Dunning first to land on ship underway (at Scapa flow) 1917. And assuming Eric Melrose Brown is the same person you referred to, he claims the first to land a jet 1945. Whilst I was aware that seaplanes had taken off from ships they would land on the sea and be winched aboard. I was unaware that balloons had been launched from ships as spotters. I wouldn't have known about Dunning had I not walked the Essex Way. More info/further reading around this subject would be gratefully received.

Yes. Naval aircraft string from aircraft carriers. NOT Mitchell's beloved long-range bombers.

No, Sophia Loren or Raquel Welch hold that distinction.

@@TheOnlySgtRock each to their own I say.

@@rigger314 Ok, for me then. :)

Yes she was❤

Apart from them completely failing to note HAMAS preparing for an attack and sitting twiddling their thumbs - despite observers at the border repeatedly informing them of exercises and prep to breach the border en masse. Those observers lost their lives. Maybe they just let it happen, eh?

Which gave the monster known as MacArthur a chance to storm in shooting everything up, an act he bragged about later. In WWI, nobody wanted to sign up after hearing what carnage was taking place. Our Gov. lied and promised the bonuses- one of our greatest shames. It never stops, either.

Exactly20yrs

He obviously didn't learn anything. The Japanese bombed MaCArseholes aircraft as they were lined up in straight lines hours after he received warning that Pearl Harbour was bombed.

Mitchell argued that high-level bombers made it unnecessary to have aircraft carriers. The B-17 never hit Japanese warships, except in USAAF propaganda about the Battle of Midway.

@@redskindan78 That's true, but it's also true that Japanese Betty bombers hit ships fairly regularly. Did they bomb from a lower altitude?

The Bettys annihilated the British Force Z -- Prince of Wales and Repulse -- with torpedoes. That was their main weapon against warships. They also bombed from a lower altitude than the B-17, Note, as well, that the USAAF B-25s were ineffective at "Mitchell altitude" so they added a cluster of machine gines to the nose and "skip bombed" from near the surface. See the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.@@dougerrohmer

The RN destroyed two fleets in harbour in 1940. The French and the Italian. The USA was the only country not taking note.

Every nation does that. Don't be proud. They're doing it in your name.

@juliehoffman6292, education is not a shameful thing, willful ignorance is. ALL nations practice this.

Yes, but with a high bar. Certainly anything that violates international law or human rights. But not for policy differences regarding defense strategy.

Nuremburg proved that "I was just following orders" is not a defence. He was fighting over the lives of his men... not "policy differences". SMH

@@steveburton5825 It is known as the "Numberg Defense." Yes, it was argued, and the dog did not hunt.