外國網友問，美國人怎么評價電影《長津湖》?我們看看網友們的回答。
問題
美國網友阿米爾?安巴拉的回答
My evaluation is that this commercial film will not sell well.
我的評價是，這部商業電影并不會賣座。
Firstly, this was almost 180 minutes of filming time, but only about 50 minutes truly mentioned the Battle of Changjin Lake. The rest of the time is spent introducing the protagonist brothers, and I feel that the title is a bit fraudulent.
首先，這是將近180分鐘的片場時間，但只有大約50分鐘的時間真正提到了長津湖之戰。剩下的時間都用來介紹主角兄弟倆，感覺片名有點作弊。
The second is military. This movie made many mistakes in military affairs. For example, under media hype, many people believe that China has only defeated a 17 country alliance led by the United States through a large-scale strategy. But my rough understanding of telling tells me that large-scale strategy was lost at the moment the machine gun was invented. You cannot defeat the well-equipped, well-trained, and battleground experienced US military during World War II through so-called strategies.
第二個是軍事。這部電影在軍事上犯了很多錯誤。例如，在媒體的宣傳下，許多人認為中國僅僅通過大規模戰略打敗了17個國家的美國領導的聯盟。但我對告訴的粗略了解告訴我，大規模戰略在機關槍發明的那一刻就失去了。你無法通過所謂戰略徹底打敗裝備精良的，訓練有素、二戰時期久經沙場的美國軍隊。
I see that Chinese people are also dissatisfied with the Western propaganda about human sea tactics, and they think it is a smear. I remember China used a very advanced tactic called the ‘Triangle Tactics’. In my opinion, if China wants to export its culture and break the monopoly of Western dialogue rights through this movie, then this movie should promote the “triangle strategy” instead of the massive crowd strategy, but it does not.
我看到中國人也對西方關于人海戰術的宣傳感到不滿，他們認為這是抹黑。我記得中國使用了一種非常先進的戰術，稱為“三角戰術”。在我看來，如果中國希望通過這部電影輸出其文化，打破西方對話語權的壟斷，那么這部電影應該宣傳“三角戰術”，而不是龐大的人海策略，但它沒有。
The third act is propaganda. There is an impressive scene: once, Chinese soldiers were eating frozen potatoes in the snow, and then the camera turned around to see American soldiers eating a hearty meal. Based on experience, the better the logistics, the greater the likelihood of the military winning. But this movie did not explain well why China wanted to send troops, it did not showcase the spirit of the Chinese military, so it failed in propaganda.
第三是宣傳。有一個令人印象深刻的場景：有一次，中國士兵在雪地里吃冷凍土豆，然后鏡頭轉過身來，看到美國士兵正在吃一頓豐盛的飯。根據經驗，后勤越好，軍隊獲勝的可能性就越大。但這部電影沒有很好地解釋為什么中國要出兵，它沒有展現出中國軍隊的精神，所以在宣傳上失敗了。
中國網友劉華的回答
Firstly, this article is aimed at those who write false reviews criticizing this film, as well as those ignorant puppet public intellectuals (such as Peter Breton, Mekhi Jordan Payne, etc.)
首先，這篇文章是致那些寫虛假影評抨擊這部電影的人，以及那些無知的傀儡公共知識分子（例如Peter Breton、Mekhi Jordan Payne等人）
Those who lied or chose to remain ignorant about the Korean War, but were corrected by me and others on Quora, but then blocked us and deleted our response to correcting you during the Korean War. You are either the most ignorant, the most dishonest loser, or both.
那些對朝鮮戰爭撒謊或選擇保持無知，但在Quora上被我和其他人糾正，但隨后屏蔽了我們并刪除了我們在朝鮮戰爭上糾正你們的回應的人，你們要么是最無知的，要么是最不誠實的失敗者，要么兩者兼而有之。
The description of the Korean War in this movie is basically accurate, with one exception: the Chinese have never used the “sea of people” tactic, as the mass media often use this false stereotype to blindly describe this tactic.
這部電影對朝鮮戰爭的描述基本上是準確的，只有一個例外：中國人從未使用過“人海”戰術，因為大眾媒體經常通過這種虛假的刻板印象來無知地描述這種戰術。
In this movie, I think some of the depictions sometimes seem to imply a certain “crowd” tactic, the only reasonable reason being that film directors and producers hope to provide more “spectacular” depictions of large-scale war scenes to attract and realize ordinary people’s imagination of what war movies should look like.
在這部電影中，我想，一些刻畫有時似乎暗示了某種“人海”戰術，唯一合理的原因只是因為電影導演和制片人希望對大規模戰爭場景進行更“壯觀”的描寫，以吸引并實現普通人對戰爭電影應該是什么樣子的想象。
Having said that, I would like to add some background facts here to support my assertion about the accuracy of the Korean War movie description:
話雖如此，我想在這里補充一些背景事實，以支持我關于朝鮮戰爭電影描述準確性的論斷：
I believe that the performance of the Chinese army in the Korean War was even better than that of the German army in the early stages of World War II.
“我認為，中國軍隊在朝鮮戰爭中的表現甚至比德國軍隊在二戰初期的表現還要好。”據Farrar Hockley將軍說，他是北約北歐盟軍前總司令，曾是二戰和朝鮮戰爭的老兵，也是朝鮮戰爭期間的戰俘，以及在戰場上不幸遭遇中國人的美國指揮官和將軍。
In his memoir “The Role of Britain in the Korean War”, he commented on Chinese soldiers in the Korean War: “I participated in World War II and the Korean War, and witnessed firsthand the battles of German, American, Soviet, and Chinese soldiers. I have to admit that German soldiers are superior to American and Soviet soldiers. But Chinese soldiers are superior to Germans
在他的回憶錄《英國在朝鮮戰爭中的作用》中，他這樣評價朝鮮戰爭中的中國士兵：“我參加過第二次世界大戰和朝鮮戰爭，親眼目睹了德國、美國、蘇聯和中國士兵的戰斗。我不得不承認，德國士兵比美國和蘇聯的士兵都優越。但中國士兵比德國人優越。”
The reason why China won is because they have absolutely excellent and unique strategies and tactics, coupled with unparalleled discipline and a steel will that is more resilient than nails, which is different from any of their opponents.
中國之所以獲勝，是因為他們擁有絕對出色和獨特的戰略和戰術，再加上無與倫比的紀律和比釘子更堅韌的鋼鐵意志，這與他們的任何對手都不同。
They used the “crowd tactics”, which is an ignorant stereotype. For example, Chinese soldiers never charged in the “crowd”, but instead formed a team of three to charge. According to official estimates by the US military, if they relied on manpower and “manpower wave tactics”, they would not have lost only 171000 lives in a war that lasted for more than three years.
他們使用了“人海戰術”，這是一種無知的刻板印象。例如，中國士兵從未在“人波”中沖鋒，而是組建了三人小隊進行沖鋒。根據美國軍方的官方估計，如果他們依靠人力和“人力波戰術”，那么在長達3年多的戰爭中，他們就不會只損失17.1萬人的生命。
And the chances of fighting against the 16-nation United Nations alliance led by the world’s only superpower were overwhelming. The superpower had complete technological advantages and dominant positions on land, air, and sea, with almost unlimited supplies, And at the beginning of the intervention, the total manpower of over one million troops increased to several times this number during the war, and then in the harshest terrain and climate in the world, North Korea’s winter was different from any other winter.
而與世界上唯一的超級大國領導的16國聯合國聯盟作戰的失敗幾率是壓倒性的，該超級大國擁有完全的技術優勢和對陸地、空中和海上的主導地位，幾乎沒有限制的補給，以及在干預開始時總計超過100萬軍隊的人力，后來在戰爭期間激增到這個數字的幾倍，然后在世界上最嚴酷的地形和氣候下，在那里，朝鮮的冬天與其他任何地方的冬天都不一樣。
In the long run, 60000 British soldiers were killed in just one day of battle during World War I, when they used true sea of men tactics against the Germans, despite their equipment being more or less as sophisticated as their German counterparts.
從長遠來看，在第一次世界大戰中，6萬名英國士兵在僅僅一天的戰斗中就被殺了，當時他們對德國人使用了真正的人海戰術，盡管英國人的裝備或多或少與德國對手一樣精良。
By the time of the Korean War, nearly 40 years after World War I, the weapons of war had evolved into more deadly weapons than those of World War I, capable of causing more deaths more easily. Therefore, if the Chinese use the “sea of people” tactic against their enemies and their weapons are much better than theirs, people will think that they will not even last for three days, let alone more than three years. Even when the two sides finally sign the “ceasefire agreement” to represent the final moment of the ceasefire, they still maintain strong strength. Isn’t this very obvious? Very obvious? However, uneducated people have never been able to come up with such simple logic alone without being informed.
到第一次世界大戰近40年后的朝鮮戰爭時，戰爭武器已經進化成比第一次世界戰爭更致命的武器，能夠更容易地造成更多人死亡。因此，如果中國人對他們的敵人使用了“人海”戰術，他們的武器比他們好得多，那么人們就會認為，他們甚至不會持續3天，更不用說3年多了，即使到雙方最終簽署“停戰協定”以表示停戰的最后時刻，他們仍然保持著強大的實力。這不是很明顯嗎？非常明顯？然而，沒有受過教育的人從來沒有能力在不被告知的情況下獨自想出如此簡單的邏輯。
However, despite often being outnumbered, technologically far behind, lacking weapons and supplies, and often lacking food, water (many Chinese soldiers can only rely on snow to obtain water), clothing, and supplies, the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army is one of the most backward “peasant armies” from one of the poorest countries in the world just to protect themselves from the harsh winter, Although there were almost no heavy weapons in the later stages of the war, apart from weapons that could be taken from the enemy, it was still able to repeatedly strike the 16 nation alliance led by the United States. The United Nations returned to the peninsula all the way from near the Yalu River, crossed the 38th and 37th lines, and even occupied the capital of South Korea, Seoul, multiple times.
然而，盡管經常寡不敵眾，技術上遠遠落后，武器和物資都遠遠不足，而且經常缺乏食物、水（許多中國士兵只能靠吃雪來獲得水）、衣服和補給，只是為了保護自己免受嚴冬的影響，中國人民志愿軍是來自世界上最貧窮國家之一的最落后的“農民軍”之一，盡管在戰爭后期除了能夠從敵人手中奪取的武器外，幾乎沒有任何重型武器，但它仍然能夠一次又一次地打擊美國領導的16國聯盟。聯合國從鴨綠江附近一路回到半島，穿過三八線和三十七線，甚至多次占領韓國首都首爾。
The Chinese are not equipped enough, to the extent that a significant portion of their total casualties throughout the war were due to insufficient protection against natural disasters or hunger.
中國人裝備不足，以至于在整個戰爭中，他們的總傷亡人數中有很大一部分是由于沒有足夠的保護來抵御自然災害或饑餓造成的。
To consolidate the position of the Chinese military in the pantheon of world history, there is nothing more resounding and convincing than accepting opponents. The following numbers are engraved on the Korean War Memorial in Washington D.C., USA, and according to the US government, these numbers represent the most accurate official statistics on the number of casualties by the United Nations:
要鞏固中國軍隊在世界歷史上萬神殿中的地位，沒有什么比接納對手更響亮、更令人信服的了。美國華盛頓特區朝鮮戰爭紀念碑上刻有以下數字，根據美國政府的說法，這些數字代表了聯合國傷亡人數的最準確官方統計數據：
–United Nations (League of 16) KIA: 11161523 (including MIA)
–聯合國（16國聯盟）KIA:11161523（包括MIA）
–United Nations (League of 16) total number of injured: 1167737
–聯合國（16國聯盟）傷員總數：1167737人
Total casualties of United Nations Command: 2.33 million
聯合國軍總傷亡人數：233萬
On the other hand, the most accurate official statistics compiled by the Chinese government on the number of casualties in the Korean War are as follows:
另一方面，中國政府編制的關于朝鮮戰爭中中國傷亡人數的最準確官方統計數據如下：
–Total number of KIAs in China: 197653 (actually higher than the official estimate of 171k by the US military)
–中國KIA總數：197653（實際上高于美國軍方官方估計的171k）
–Total casualties in China: 370000
–中國總傷亡人數：37萬
Therefore, the total casualty ratio between China and the United Nations 16 nation alliance is 370000 to 2.33 million, or 1-7.
因此，中國與聯合國16國聯盟的總傷亡比例為37萬比233萬，即1比7。
That is why the Korean War is known as the “forgotten war” in American history, as it is the first time in its history that the United States has failed to win, despite its overwhelming advantage in various aspects of strength indicators in confronting an enemy that appears to be very backward and tragic. There is too much to write and list about this war, which explains why the Chinese people are still able to win, and these are not related to “manpower” or “numbers”.
這就是為什么朝鮮戰爭在美國歷史上被稱為“被遺忘的戰爭”，因為這是其歷史上第一次美國未能獲勝，盡管美國在對抗一個看起來非常落后和可悲的敵人時，在力量指標的各個方面都有著壓倒性的優勢。關于這場戰爭，有太多可以寫出來和列出的內容，說明了為什么中國人仍然能夠獲勝，而這些都與“人力”或“數字”無關。
On the other hand, the United States actually used real human sea tactics in key battles such as Shangganling, and many Chinese soldiers created a record breaking infantry feat in world military history at Shangganling. During the Korean War, China created a similar, unprecedented and still unparalleled world military history record for the US and UN forces.
另一方面，美國方面在上甘嶺等關鍵戰役中實際上使用了真正的人海戰術，許多中國士兵在上甘嶺創造了世界軍事史上創紀錄的步兵壯舉。在朝鮮戰爭期間，中國對美國和聯合國軍隊創造了類似的前所未有的、仍然無與倫比的殺傷率世界軍事歷史記錄。
美國網友托米?鮑什的回答
It is not only an inaccurate description of historical facts, but also a promotional video.
它不僅在歷史史實上描述不準確，而且是一部宣傳片。
I think at the beginning of the movie, it made the American military look very “evil”. In the process of the US military’s “conquest” of North Korea, they always played the role of butchers.
我想，在電影的開頭，它讓美國軍隊看起來很“邪惡”。在美國軍隊“征服”朝鮮的過程中，他們永遠扮演著屠夫的角色。
In some places, they depict American soldiers as “spoiled” little boys living in very good conditions, while they depict Chinese people as almost not eating any decent food. Although Americans do eat better than Chinese people, this does not mean they have not suffered. The film refuses to depict the suffering and trials of American soldiers.
在某些地方，他們把美國士兵描繪成“被寵壞了”的小男孩，生活在非常好的條件下，而把中國人描繪成幾乎沒有吃到任何像樣的食物，雖然美國人確實比中國人吃得好，但這并不意味著他們沒有受苦。影片拒絕描繪美國士兵的苦難和磨難。
Apart from anti American rhetoric. This movie also showcases the main character’s “supernatural” abilities, such as in a scene where the main character manages to use an M48 tank and uses it to defeat several American tanks.
除了反美言論。這部電影還展示了主要角色具有“超自然”能力，比如有一個場景，主要角色設法使用M48坦克并用它擊敗了幾輛美國坦克。
What I mean is that these Chinese people grew up in a fishing village in the countryside and now serve in the infantry army. They may have learned how to operate the M48 there, let alone eliminate those who have truly received training in using and operating it.
我的意思是，這些中國人在農村的一個漁村長大，現在在步兵部隊服役，他們ze那么可能在那里學會了如何操作M48，更不用說消滅那些真正受過使用和操作訓練的人了。
Also at the end of the movie… I don’t agree with its statement. In fact, no one won the Korean War.
同樣在電影的結尾…我不同意它的說法。事實上，戰爭沒有贏家。
美國網友山姆?斯騰格爾的回答
The movie shows that US reinforcements arrived with multiple aircraft carriers, large bombers, support ships, and infantry in full force. It shows that the United States is advancing towards the north of North Korea, and they destroyed some villages with perfectly coordinated carpet bombing.
電影顯示，美國增援部隊攜多艘航空母艦、大型轟炸機、支援艦艇和步兵全力抵達。它顯示了美國向朝鮮北部推進，他們用完美協調的地毯式轟炸摧毀了一些村莊。
Then, when Mao Zedong learned about this news, the movie switched to Mao Zedong and he decided that China must send troops. His son wanted to go, but he allowed it.
然后，電影切換到毛澤東主席得知這一消息后，他決定中國必須派兵，他的兒子想去，他允許了。
The Chinese Volunteer Army took a train to North Korea, but had to remove the pins and flags, so they could not represent China because they had not yet officially participated in the war. Subsequently, American planes discovered the personnel carrier and bombed it while searching for cover.
中國志愿軍乘坐火車前往朝鮮，但必須摘下別針和旗幟，這樣他們就不能代表中國，因為他們還沒有正式參戰。隨后，美國飛機發現了這列運兵車，并在尋找掩護時對其進行了轟炸。
Most of the content at the beginning of the film clearly covers the dominant position of the United States in military technology and organization, and shows that the Chinese army has almost no enough food and weapons.
電影開頭的大部分內容清楚地涵蓋了美國在軍事技術和組織方面的主導地位，并顯示中國軍隊幾乎沒有充足的食物和武器。
After engaging in war with American planes, they finally found themselves very close to the enemy (Americans). In the next three battles, China’s ambushes against the Americans were mostly successful, but there were also some significant losses. Every time Americans fall into retreat.
在與美國飛機交戰后，他們終于發現自己離敵人（美國人）很近了。在接下來的三場戰斗中，中國對美國人的伏擊大多取得了成功，但也有一些重大損失。每次美國人都陷入撤退。
At the end of the movie, the remaining Chinese army, protecting the ridge waiting for the enemy, froze to death. The American general went to inspect and paid tribute to them, stating that China is a steadfast force that will protect their land. The US headquarters learned about China’s participation and returned to South Korea, ending the movie.
在電影的結尾，剩下的中國軍隊，保護著等待敵人的山脊，凍死了。美國將軍前往視察，向他們致敬，并表示中國是一支堅定的力量，將保護他們的土地。美國總部了解到中國的參與，返回韓國，電影結束。
In the final subtitle, they played some white letters on the black screen, telling the audience to respect those who sacrificed for China. I can’t remember any other details, it’s awkward for all of us, including me, the only foreigner.
在最后的字幕中，他們在黑色屏幕上播放了一些白色字母，告訴觀眾要尊重那些為中國犧牲的人。我記不清其他細節了，這對我們所有人來說都很尷尬，包括我這個唯一的外國人。
I think the accuracy of events and dates is better than most war movies I have watched. The performance of Americans is not very good, but it is very humorous and interesting. They showcase more enemy customs and culture than most war movies.
我認為事件和日期的準確性比我看過的大多數戰爭電影都要好。美國人的表演不是很好，但很幽默，很有趣，他們展示了比大多數戰爭電影更多的敵人習俗和文化。
The battle scenes in this movie are a bit redundant, but there are many details of bullets, assassinations, death, and blood. I think doing this is more for entertainment than anything else, but in a sense, war is terrifying, which is a reality.
這部電影的戰斗場景有點多余，但有很多子彈、刺殺、死亡和血腥的細節。我認為這樣做更多的是為了娛樂，而不是其他任何事情，但從某種意義上說，戰爭是可怕的，這是現實的。
I think this movie was made very well. I don’t know if they are catering to the feelings of the Chinese people and preparing for any future conflicts, as China now has more modern technology.
我認為這部電影拍得很好。我不知道他們是否是為了迎合中國人民的感情，為他們未來的任何沖突做好準備，而現在中國有了更多的現代技術。
Some explanations and wording are somewhat awkward, such as some generals who have been saying that they must fight to prevent the United States from invading China, downplaying any realistic negotiations that occurred between all countries at that time.
有些解釋和措辭有點令人尷尬，比如一些將軍的角色一直說他們必須為阻止美國入侵中國而戰斗，他們淡化了當時所有國家之間發生的任何現實的談判。
There are no North Koreans or Koreans in the film.
影片中沒有朝鮮人或韓國人。
Although this movie is defined as entertainment rather than a documentary, they do tell the story from a Chinese perspective and the details they have elaborated on in the education system over the years.
雖然這部電影被定義為娛樂而非紀錄片，但他們確實從中國的角度講述了這個故事，以及他們多年來在教育體系中所闡述的細節。
