Why are American soldiers loved now.....

[Vulcan]

There have been some American war movies that I've enjoyed such as Catch 22, Mash, Stalag 17 and Apocalypse Now but the majority have so much Yankee jingoism that I find them unwatchable. You obviously don't remember the McCarthy era where many Hollywood writers and directors were black balled for being Communist sympathizers because they didn't toe the super right wing ideology.

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by Sowa

I think he was making a joke about Girly using Baby BOMBERS instead of boomers.

That one slipped right past me....still scraping the egg off my beak.....

[tjinaz]

In my opinion. Well written by a flawed man and a true believer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bright_Shining_Lie

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Had the two sides understood each other in what way?

He is right in the 2nd part of your post. It was the North's propaganda that the US were absolutely raping the South and it was "our" job to go into the south and 'save our brothers' and reunified the country.

Understood in the way described in my last paragraph basicly. Both sides were wrong about the enemy priorities.

[OffsideSpecialist]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

In my opinion. Well written by a flawed man and a true believer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bright_Shining_Lie

Sounds interesting. Honestly, I don't know a whole lot about that particular war, but I would like to learn more. I may have to pick it up one day!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

And I say the Soviet Union would have been defeated were it not for second fronts opened in Noth Africa by the Western Allies, not to mention the defacto second front that was the Allied bombing campaign as well as massive material support for the Soviets from the West. It was that close. If the Battle of Stalingrad goes the other way, the Soviets lose the war. WWII was a group effort that required the participation of the US, due to their massive industrial infrastructure.

I have to completely disagree with you here, the N African campaign was a side show for Germany, the Afrika Korp was a tiny force given mostly obsolete tanks to fight the equally obsolete 7th armoured, it made no difference either way to the Russian campaign and was withdrawn by '43.

The allied bombing campaign up to 1943 was costing us more than it was the germans, it wasn't until the Mustang arrived that it really started to take up German resources, and bear in mind that under Speer German production actually went up in 44.

Had the battle of Stalingrad 'gone the other way' Germany would have held onto a bombed out city on the western banks of the Volga while the USSR would still have had the capacity to build an arm a million men a year, Stalingrad was never in the balance, Stalin had several armies in reserve to encircle the Germans throughout the battle, in fact the only way the Germans could in any way 'win' the battle would have been to withdraw to the Dniester before being trapped.

Left on their own the USSR would have still beaten Hitler, it might have taken a year or so longer but the end was inevitable.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Remember Vietnam was divided in two. The South was very grateful the Americans were helping to fight the Communists and felt abandoned when the US left (even with some of the atrocities).

It was the CIA that largely brought about the division of Vietnam, 'the south' didn't exist until the US invented it, and the reality is most Vietnamese were grateful to the Communists for throwing out the French, the US, in the height of anti communism in the mid 50's throw their full weight of propaganda into persuading the catholic minority that the communists would kill them, which succeded quite well, but on the whole the rest of the Vietnamese were never particularly supportive of the US effort to 'save' them from the evil commies mostly because the #######s we picked to run the place were all as bad as the commies or worse.

What the US did in South Vietnam was foist a catholic dictatorship onto a mostly Buddhist majority, the Catholics, being French educated were all mostly middle to upper class, and somewhat sympathetic to colonial rule, the buddhists majority were the poorer farmers and agrarian workers and were either supportive of the communists or at best nuetral.

[GirlySports]

I'm not sure about that. I think the South didn't want to be communists at all. The refused elections in 1954 and 1956 which the North would have won because it had the bigger population. Also there was a large influx of refugees that fled the North to enter the South which was then ruled as a republic (through a rigged referendum).

If the South had been supportive or neutral of the communists as you say the war would have been lost long ago, or not even a war at all. Even though the Americans were there, the South Vietnamese still did much of the fighting.

I know that we are both just generalizing the details. It was a really complicated war.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I'm not sure about that. I think the South didn't want to be communists at all. The refused elections in 1954 and 1956 which the North would have won because it had the bigger population. Also there was a large influx of refugees that fled the North to enter the South which was then ruled as a republic (through a rigged referendum).

If the South had been supportive or neutral of the communists as you say the war would have been lost long ago, or not even a war at all. Even though the Americans were there, the South Vietnamese still did much of the fighting.

I know that we are both just generalizing the details. It was a really complicated war.

There was no 'south' and 'north' though, the seperation itself was a wholly artificial idea, the division was predomonantly religeous, the Catholic minority opposed the Communists who drew their strengh from the Budhist majority.
The CIA sponsered and largely paid for a huge evacuation of Catholics from the North into the South in order to create an area where there was at least a chance to set up an opposing goverment.

The South never defended itself though and was always wholly propped up by the US, as soon as the americans withdrew a vastly larger and better equiped army of the south collapsed within few weeks of the North attacking, not exactly a sign they were opposed to the North or prepared to die for the South.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

So, Itse, the American government controls all films produced about war? Really? You really believe that?

The US military can indirectly make a huge difference to the content of a film. For both PR and recruitment reasons, the Pentagon is more than willing to freely lend personnel and equipment to a movie shoot, but only if the film portrays the military in a positive light. Since making movies is expensive, and studio execs always want to save money, directors and writers will often be demanded to make changes to the script to ensure the cooperation of the US military. It's not exactly government-mandated censorship, but in Hollywood, money talks.

If you're American and you want to get some impressive combat scenes in your movie, you can call The Pentagon and borrow some of their equipment. Plus any soldiers who happen to be free. To give an example, Black Hawk Down wasn't forced to use out-of-date Hueys because the Pentagon lent them Black Hawks. The 2007 Transformers movie got brand-spanking-new tanks, planes and helicopters (half of which turned out to be villains).

One reason for this is, if the film is positive about the military, it is good Public Relations, and this supports its mission. In fact, if it's really good, e.g. is very positive of the military and a box-office success, it will cause enlistment in the military to increase. Some people said that the Pentagon, in addition to the support it gave for the movie Top Gun, should have been paying them for what amounted to a two-hour recruiting commercial.

There's a catch — the Department of Defense will keep an eye on the script. If they don't like your film, they can yank the co-operation. This was a major reason for the failure of the TV series Supercarrier. Other movies the DoD rejected were Forrest Gump, because the army protagonist was stupid, Mars Attacks!!, because everyone was stupid, and Independence Day. Still, if your film just has to have a full-sized aircraft carrier, where else can one turn?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...dByThePentagon

Here's a subtle example:

In The Movie of Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears, the carrier that was attacked was originally to have been sunk, but in order to keep military support for the film, the script had to be adjusted so that the carrier survived, though it was mission killed (that is, couldn't do much of anything except limp away).

Is that censorship? It's a grey area for sure, but the filmmakers were forced to change their original vision to ensure military cooperation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Yet in 2012 a Aircraft carrier fell on the Whitehouse basically killing the President.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yet in 2012 a Aircraft carrier fell on the Whitehouse basically killing the President.

I could be wrong but I suspect that wasn't a real carrier, or the real White House

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yet in 2012 a Aircraft carrier fell on the Whitehouse basically killing the President.

The linked article mentions that Pentagon support is becoming increasingly irrelevant as computer graphics technology improves, but it's still cheaper to borrow authentic military hardware for a film than do it in CG (as was done in 2012).

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There was no 'south' and 'north' though, the seperation itself was a wholly artificial idea, the division was predomonantly religeous, the Catholic minority opposed the Communists who drew their strengh from the Budhist majority.
The CIA sponsered and largely paid for a huge evacuation of Catholics from the North into the South in order to create an area where there was at least a chance to set up an opposing goverment.

The South never defended itself though and was always wholly propped up by the US, as soon as the americans withdrew a vastly larger and better equiped army of the south collapsed within few weeks of the North attacking, not exactly a sign they were opposed to the North or prepared to die for the South.

True the war was lost within a month but it was mostly because of poor leadership. The generals did not allow the South Vietnamese to fight, but instead regrouped its forces to stall for time (perhaps to get money from the US or get them back into the war). They took the wrong roads and defends the wrong areas, refugees fleeing for their lives blocked certain roads and both civilians and officers were attacked.

If you're a history buff read about the Battle of Ban Me Thuot and see one of the greatest military blunders in history by the South Vietnamese government and generals.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

True the war was lost within a month but it was mostly because of poor leadership. The generals did not allow the South Vietnamese to fight, but instead regrouped its forces to stall for time (perhaps to get money from the US or get them back into the war). They took the wrong roads and defends the wrong areas, refugees fleeing for their lives blocked certain roads and both civilians and officers were attacked.

If you're a history buff read about the Battle of Ban Me Thuot and see one of the greatest military blunders in history by the South Vietnamese government and generals.

The leadership of South Vietnam both politically and military, was a consequence of their narrow support within the country though, the Catholic minority kept power within their families never trusting (with good reason) anyone outside of a small group of ruling clans.

The whole country was badly run from the mid fifties onwards as it was in our interest to maintain presidents who were wholly dependant on the US rather than from popular support, this had the effect of making leadership in the ARVN military a political position predominantly, and for much of the war Generals were in control of South Vietnam, of course none of this made for either good tactical control in the field and also meant their was little trust between Saigon and its commanders in the field.

[Cowperson]

To the original question, how soldiers are treated right now versus Vietnam, JR Martinez, horribly burned and visibly injured in Iraq, is currently the favourite on Dancing With The Stars.

When Martinez was 19 years old, he joined the Army and was deployed to Iraq. Two months into his tour there, he was driving a Humvee that hit a landmine. He was burned over 40 percent of his body and has undergone more than 30 reconstructive surgeries. His face remains partially disfigured

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertai...econd-chances/

Deservedly leading the competition . . . . . he's been a surprisingly good dancer.

But that's the difference between a baby killer and a hero who needs the popular vote.

Cowperson