[Klaustrophobia]

u-571 closed with a list of the ACTUAL missions to break the enigma code and who carried them out.  it wasn't claiming american credit, it was a movie for entertainment.  and for right now, not having seen argo, i'm assuming likewise.

Where though? At the end of the movie, or in the credits? (Haven't seen it). If it's in the credits, I bet very few people will see it.

before the credits, like in other "based on a true story" movies where they give brief descriptions of the actual events/how the characters ended up.

[Flipside]

To be fair to the screenwriter, he did apologize about it later saying that the film had been deliberately targeted to an American audience and that it was not something he would do again. There were other complaints made about the film as well (such as it depicting U-Boat crew firing on the survivors, something that actually only happened once in the U-Boat ranks) but, in fairness to those, that's no worse than how many British movies depicted them for years.

I think this might be part of the problem, some movies are being made about 'movies', for example, it will be interesting to see how Peter Jackson deals with the double-legacy of Dambusters, which has a history not only as a factual event, but also as a far more fictional one as depicted in the movie of the same name. Apparently every effort is being made to be historically accurate, so it will be interesting to see how it is received.

[StarSlayer]

Reminds me of the U571 fiasco. Hollywood made a movie about how they captured an Enigma device and made it look like the US were the first to do it. When the UK complained about this they said 'If you care so much, why didn't you make a movie about it?'. In response a bunch of British comedians stated they would make a movie about how the UK were the first people on the Moon. Hollywood got angry. Guess what the response was?

I'd pay good money to see that movie, honestly.

It's all fun until the moon landing hoax twats use it as proof of their tinfoil hat ravings.

[Mongoose]

I think this might be part of the problem, some movies are being made about 'movies', for example, it will be interesting to see how Peter Jackson deals with the double-legacy of Dambusters, which has a history not only as a factual event, but also as a far more fictional one as depicted in the movie of the same name. Apparently every effort is being made to be historically accurate, so it will be interesting to see how it is received.

Heh, now you have me in a Wiki hole reading about this.  Barnes Wallis sounds like he was a real genius of an engineer.

[Flipside]

The Dambusters was one of those funny things where, whilst considered one of the greatest missions flown by the RAF during WW2, it would in modern day terms be a War Crime on a massive scale. Obviously, different rules applied back then, but it is an interesting reflection on the relationship between how desperate a person or country feels and what they are prepared to do in order to survive.

Barnes Wallis himself is sort of looked upon like an 'Engineering Einstein' in UK War History, in many ways he defined the common view of UK Invention being powered by amiable old pipe-smoking men in sheds

[karajorma]

u-571 closed with a list of the ACTUAL missions to break the enigma code and who carried them out.  it wasn't claiming american credit, it was a movie for entertainment.  and for right now, not having seen argo, i'm assuming likewise. 

That was only added after complaints from the UK. They'd have been quite happy to have missed it out if no one had commented.

[Lorric]

The Dambusters was one of those funny things where, whilst considered one of the greatest missions flown by the RAF during WW2, it would in modern day terms be a War Crime on a massive scale. Obviously, different rules applied back then, but it is an interesting reflection on the relationship between how desperate a person or country feels and what they are prepared to do in order to survive.

Barnes Wallis himself is sort of looked upon like an 'Engineering Einstein' in UK War History, in many ways he defined the common view of UK Invention being powered by amiable old pipe-smoking men in sheds

Well as far as I'm concerned, when you're fighting a whole country's population, when the whole population is either called up to the military or put into service actively striving to contribute to the war effort, anything goes. Civillians are as legitamate a target as soldiers, and exterminating the whole population should be an actively pursued goal until they surrender. Every person killed, soldier, civillian, man, woman or child takes you a step closer to victory. This would have happened to the Japanese if they had not surrendered. But Hitler gave the order to bomb civillians in Britain anyway, with the express goal of pounding the civillian population into capitulation, so they brought it on themselves.

Survival was exactly all it was about. There was no grand vision in WWII, it was simply a fight for survival. I'm sure if the A-bomb had been developed earlier, it would have been dropped on Berlin. And you can be sure Hitler would have used it if he had it.

[Flipside]

Agreed, which is why it serves to enlighten the situation where now we have the luxury of 'rules' and are horrified to find out that some people aren't interested in keeping to them very tightly.

[Lorric]

Agreed, which is why it serves to enlighten the situation where now we have the luxury of 'rules' and are horrified to find out that some people aren't interested in keeping to them very tightly.

The West hasn't been in any wars lately where they have been opposed by the civillian population.

Although in today's information age, I would be surprised if two first World countries would engage in total war, short of if one's whole populaton was completely enslaved by some madman.

EDIT: Or if in the future resources were ever so scarce that they needed to destroy another country and take their resources in order to survive.

[The E]

The West hasn't been in any wars lately where they have been opposed by the civillian population.

*Cough* Yes, it has. Ever heard of a place called Afghanistan? As I recall, the Taliban were not classified as an official governmental force, making them just civilians with a few weapons.

Although in today's information age, I would be surprised if two first World countries would engage in total war, short of if one's whole populaton was completely enslaved by some madman.

Lolno. The reason why first world countries do not wage open war amongst themselves is because war, simply put, doesn't pay anymore. There is nothing to be gained by invading a country, deposing its government and installing a new regime, as the US found out when they took over Iraq.
In addition, you would not believe the amount of crap that can happen before other countries feel the need to intervene. See for example: Ukraine. Or Saudi-Arabia.

EDIT: Or if in the future resources were ever so scarce that they needed to destroy another country and take their resources in order to survive.

The thing is, industrialized countries are generally short on ressources to take (Or rather, the ressources they do have tend to react badly to armed conflicts in their cities).

[Lorric]

The West hasn't been in any wars lately where they have been opposed by the civillian population.

*Cough* Yes, it has. Ever heard of a place called Afghanistan? As I recall, the Taliban were not classified as an official governmental force, making them just civilians with a few weapons.

Although in today's information age, I would be surprised if two first World countries would engage in total war, short of if one's whole populaton was completely enslaved by some madman.

Lolno. The reason why first world countries do not wage open war amongst themselves is because war, simply put, doesn't pay anymore. There is nothing to be gained by invading a country, deposing its government and installing a new regime, as the US found out when they took over Iraq.
In addition, you would not believe the amount of crap that can happen before other countries feel the need to intervene. See for example: Ukraine. Or Saudi-Arabia.

EDIT: Or if in the future resources were ever so scarce that they needed to destroy another country and take their resources in order to survive.

The thing is, industrialized countries are generally short on ressources to take (Or rather, the ressources they do have tend to react badly to armed conflicts in their cities).

Oh come on, that's a technicality with the Taliban. Would mercenaries be classed as civilians? And anyway, they're far from the majority of the population, that's what I mean.

The only way war would pay would be to sack a country. In, grab everything worth taking, out. And of course without attracting the ire of other countries. War even throughout history often is a drain even on the victor. Especially once the option of taking slaves was taken out of the equation.

Then I guess they'd just pick whoever they could take from. If there was ever a global crisis though, I guess everyone would just be fighting over whatever scraps they could find.

[Flipside]

Thing is, the war against infrastructure is also fought on far more fronts than it used to be. Once upon a time, carpet-bombing factories was the most effective route considering you were using primitive targeting, limited intelligence and couldn't count on air superiority or, frequently, even basic fighter support.

The reason that Fundamentalist groups tend to ignore Western 'rules of War' is because they are pretty much in a similar situation psychologically.

[NGTM-1R]

And anyway, they're far from the majority of the population, that's what I mean.

There has never been a war where the majority of the population was combatant. It is neither economically nor militarily feasible to do. Being able to place ten percent of the population under arms is historically a great achievement.

[Lorric]

And anyway, they're far from the majority of the population, that's what I mean.

There has never been a war where the majority of the population was combatant. It is neither economically nor militarily feasible to do. Being able to place ten percent of the population under arms is historically a great achievement.

Not combatant. Supporting the war effort.

[NGTM-1R]

Not combatant. Supporting the war effort.

A nebulous, useless definition. What is "supporting the war effort"? Directly war-related industries? Now we're up to twenty-five percent of the population being historically very high!

Society goes on when the war happens. The roads gotta be maintained, the crops gotta be tended, the electricity has to keep flowing. Most of a society's able-bodied will already be employed in tending to society. Only a limited amount of diversion is possible. This number has shrunk down the years.

[Lorric]

Not combatant. Supporting the war effort.

A nebulous, useless definition. What is "supporting the war effort"? Directly war-related industries? Now we're up to twenty-five percent of the population being historically very high!

Society goes on when the war happens. The roads gotta be maintained, the crops gotta be tended, the electricity has to keep flowing. Most of a society's able-bodied will already be employed in tending to society. Only a limited amount of diversion is possible. This number has shrunk down the years.

When the society supports the war. Simple as. If the society is working against you, the society must be destroyed.

[deathfun]

If the society is working against you, the society must be destroyed.

Lorric: Future Dictator

[StarSlayer]

Not combatant. Supporting the war effort.

A nebulous, useless definition. What is "supporting the war effort"? Directly war-related industries? Now we're up to twenty-five percent of the population being historically very high!

Society goes on when the war happens. The roads gotta be maintained, the crops gotta be tended, the electricity has to keep flowing. Most of a society's able-bodied will already be employed in tending to society. Only a limited amount of diversion is possible. This number has shrunk down the years.

When the society supports the war. Simple as. If the society is working against you, the society must be destroyed.

It's generally accepted practice to beat your opponents' will to fight then to think you're going to genocide an entire people.  Beating them into submission is almost always the main drive of military action.  While the scale of warfare typically ebs and flows by including civilian targets and infrastructure to accomplish this it typically is done still with the goal of causing them to capitulate.  It's a means to an end.  Actually purposefully trying to annihilate a people is well, a different can of crazy entirely.  Not to mention not all societies have then benefit of being able to decide their fates when it comes to leadership and foreign policy.  Some societies are near completely cut of from foreign stimuli and are conditioned from a young age to follow the powers that be.  Brazenly decimating those people is without a modicum of concern is ignorant and callous to the extreme.

Now to prosecute a successful war will sometimes will require "total conflict" to achieve victory, but thinking its the first option on the list and gleefully pursuing it as a strategy even beyond attaining the capitulation of the enemy is not acceptable decision making. 

[Lorric]

If the society is working against you, the society must be destroyed.

Lorric: Future Dictator

Do you disapprove, DEATHFUN? 

I am a peaceful person. But I'm not a pacifist. Live and let live.

Not combatant. Supporting the war effort.

A nebulous, useless definition. What is "supporting the war effort"? Directly war-related industries? Now we're up to twenty-five percent of the population being historically very high!

Society goes on when the war happens. The roads gotta be maintained, the crops gotta be tended, the electricity has to keep flowing. Most of a society's able-bodied will already be employed in tending to society. Only a limited amount of diversion is possible. This number has shrunk down the years.

When the society supports the war. Simple as. If the society is working against you, the society must be destroyed.

It's generally accepted practice to beat your opponents' will to fight then to think you're going to genocide an entire people.  Beating them into submission is almost always the main drive of military action.  While the scale of warfare typically ebs and flows by including civilian targets and infrastructure to accomplish this it typically is done still with the goal of causing them to capitulate.  It's a means to an end.  Actually purposefully trying to annihilate a people is well, a different can of crazy entirely.  Not to mention not all societies have then benefit of being able to decide their fates when it comes to leadership and foreign policy.  Some societies are near completely cut of from foreign stimuli and are conditioned from a young age to follow the powers that be.  Brazenly decimating those people is without a modicum of concern is ignorant and callous to the extreme.

Now to prosecute a successful war will sometimes will require "total conflict" to achieve victory, but thinking its the first option on the list and gleefully pursuing it as a strategy even beyond attaining the capitulation of the enemy is not an acceptable decision making. 

No, no, no, I have stated further back in the topic until they surrender if you have a look. You have said exactly what I think, your view and mine are exactly the same.

[NGTM-1R]

"Destroy the society because it opposes you" vs. "wars are won by destroying either the ability or will of the enemy to fight" are perhaps reconcilable views, but saying that you agree with Starslayer following your previous statements, no, that doesn't really follow. You basically tracked the logic behind most terrorist groups and want us to say it follows that behind state use of military force.