Avatar, asymmetric warfare, and US contribution to WW2

[alertken]

BBC Radio interview this morning, planning permission having been given for the Bomber Command memorial in Green Park, with 87-years old BC veteran AM Sir Michael Beetham. Dealt at a stroke with the "war criminal" accusations v.RAF (e.g Philosophy lecturer AC Grayling, "Down Among the Dead Cities"): they had blitzed us; Bombing was for long the only means of hurting our enemy.

Though too young myself to remember, my mother was bombed and her friend cowering next to her was killed. Neither had caused War, both found themselves in it, up to neck. beating the bad guy was the boat we were all in. US and USSR and The King's Forces were Allies. Together. No point in trying to puff up any one, nor poo-poo anyone. Together we made a fine team. Shame it couldn't last.

 

[Matej]

I hope that this topic satisfy all your needs for the off topic discussion so the other topics can stay clear only with the facts and the usefull information. At least for this its good (I hope).

 

[Skybolt]

Let's rename it "the off-topic topic" !
Ok, I'm joking

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Abraham when I was talking about mechanized/motorized forces I was referring to Soviet infantry. How many Soviet riflemen relied on sitting on the sides of a tanks for transport, or unarmored (and sometimes lend-lease) trucks? How many even had that "comfort"? It really wasn't until the post-war period that the Soviets really embraced mechanized infantry with the BTR series.

Also, why do you believe it would take four months before B-29 raids could be staged on Moscow?

The Red Army had taken a real battering in four years of war. Even they would wear out eventually, long before being able to drive the Allies back into France.

 

[Orionblamblam]

...the relief in Germany when the Japanese finally committed in November for war with the USA.

This is gibberish. Why would the Germans be "relieved" that they themselves had brought the full force of the US military down upon them? If they wanted the Japanese to draw off American interest and effort, that's fine... they would've smiled at Pearl Harbor and then gone back about their business. Declaring war on the US was monumentally stupid.

Yeah, so they might've had agreements with the Japanese. They had agreements with *everybody.* How many did they keep?

If they hadn’t declared war then no doubt the Americans would have some time in 1942 after one of the many U-Boat vs USN casus belli.

No doubt? Once again, the bulk of America did not *want* a war with Germany, and FDR ran precisely on that platform in '40.

The war was governed by reasoned strategies on both sides aligning military force to what was seen to be the greatest threat.

Anybody with any brains in the US government knew that the Soviets were the biggest threat. The most that the Fascists could do was launch a war of aggression, and try to conquer the US militarily; a strategy that would never work. But the commies could win via infiltration and indoctrination. To this day, the legacy of the American Nazi movement is at best slight; the legacy of the Imperial Japanse "movement" within the US is virtually non-existent. The legacy of the communists, however, is massive and ongoing.

 

[Lauge]

.....the Great Chibi Uprising of 2024?

Oh, come ON......no that old story again ;D

Regards & all

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[Skybolt]

Besides what Scott has already eloquently said, the Tripartite Pact between Germany, Italy and Japan said in

ARTICLE 2. Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in Greater East Asia.

ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

So, there was no Treaty clause that Japan could invoke to press Germany and Italy to declare war to the US. Moreover, and even more significant, Japan insisted for the provision of the following:

ARTICLE 5. Japan, Germany and Italy affirm that the above agreement affects in no way the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia.

So, Japan had the Treaty stating that its contents didn't dictate ANY policy change vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Germany was still allied with USSR, so that article was ok for them too. But that same article, by extension, excluded the Treaty for having influence on the politics of the single signers vis-a-vis the US.

 

[Rosdivan]

Also, why do you believe it would take four months before B-29 raids could be staged on Moscow?

Most likely the shifting of logistics in order to operate B-29s out of England. The loss rate would be pretty horrendous though, trying to fly a thousand miles through Soviet controlled airspace and only Sweden available for emergency landings (and planes non-recoverable from internment).

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The loss rate would be pretty horrendous though, trying to fly a thousand miles through Soviet controlled airspace and only Sweden available for emergency landings (and planes non-recoverable from internment).

I don't know much specifics about Soviet WWII fighters, but I thought most were designed to be performers at lower altitudes. What fighters would be effective that high up? The LA-7?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This is gibberish. Why would the Germans be "relieved" that they themselves had brought the full force of the US military down upon them? If they wanted the Japanese to draw off American interest and effort, that's fine... they would've smiled at Pearl Harbor and then gone back about their business. Declaring war on the US was monumentally stupid.

LOL so you think Sir Ian Kershaw the world’s foremost expert on Hitler writes gibberish. If I gave you the citation and if you’re not willing to look it up and continue with your point of view then what’s the point?

Despite a gross simplification, hindsight driven point of view as expressed by Orion here the reality is the Nazis were extremely keen on having Japan involved in war with America. They perceived themselves already to be in an undeclared war with America – which they were – and believed that they would benefit directly by being in an open war with Japan involved.

Besides what Scott has already eloquently said, the Tripartite Pact between Germany, Italy and Japan said in

That was the initial draft and of course it held for several years without Japan getting involved in the war against France and the UK. Of course this was not the end point to diplomacy between Germany and Japan.

This really is quite foolish. Both of you can insist on your point of view for as long as you want but it isn’t factual. I am not putting words of opinions into Hitler’s mouth. This is historically revealed fact. You can either read through their archives and interview first hand participants like Sir Ian Kershaw or take the information revealed through his book. Otherwise you are just participating in propagation of counter knowledge.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abraham when I was talking about mechanized/motorized forces I was referring to Soviet infantry. How many Soviet riflemen relied on sitting on the sides of a tanks for transport, or unarmored (and sometimes lend-lease) trucks? How many even had that "comfort"? It really wasn't until the post-war period that the Soviets really embraced mechanized infantry with the BTR series.

During WW2 the only infantry units that were mechanized were those attached to armoured divisions. In the UK-USA this meant 3-4 battalions per division equipped with half tracks. In the German army it meant 1-2 battalions with half tracks and 2-3 with trucks. The equivalent of a UK-USA division in the Red Army was a Tank Corps (in combat power, personnel strength and manpower). Each Tank Corps had 2-3 battalions of tank descenders (infantry that would ride on the back of tanks) and 3 battalions of truck borne infantry. The end result was really not very different. While the Soviet model resulted in more casualties for infantry it meant less logistical burden from the half tracks.

In the rest of the infantry UK-USA infantry divisions were effectively fully motorized but German divisions (which had 2/3s of the battalions) were not motorized at all, even relying on horse drawn mobility for combat support and combat service support. The Red Army rifle corps (equivalent in strength to a UK-USA division) were split between Guards and non Guards. Guards rifle corps were motorized as per UK-USA divisions but non Guards were horse drawn as per German divisions. The Soviets subsequently used their motorized Guards divisions to support the advances of the tank units and the non motorized divisions as shock infantry for initial attack and follow up support. While it may not have been pretty it took advantage of the best of both worlds – speed and reduced logistical requirements – and it worked.

Also, why do you believe it would take four months before B-29 raids could be staged on Moscow?

I said nuclear raids would not be available until August 1945. Not because of the B-29s but because of timetable for nuclear bomb construction. Which without any magic wands being waved would mean the USA would only have around 10 bombs of around 10-20kt each up until Mid 1946.

The Red Army had taken a real battering in four years of war. Even they would wear out eventually, long before being able to drive the Allies back into France.

So had everyone. But the Red Army was on the upswing from its lowest points in 41-42. Both the US and UK Armies on the other hand were at their lowest points of effectiveness in the winter of 44/45 and other issues like access to supplies were a lot tougher for them.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

I've watched Avatar yesterday evening, a review will be posted later.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

While it may not have been pretty it took advantage of the best of both worlds – speed and reduced logistical requirements – and it worked.

I wouldn't call it the best of both worlds when one of the end results was much heavier causalities among the infantry.
It worked, but I am sure many Soviet commanders would rather have their infantry riding in something like the BTR-152.

I said nuclear raids would not be available until August 1945. Not because of the B-29s but because of timetable for nuclear bomb construction. Which without any magic wands being waved would mean the USA would only have around 10 bombs of around 10-20kt each up until Mid 1946.

Even without nuclear raids the USAAF and RAF could do far more damage to strategic targets than the Luftwaffe managed to accomplish. Biggest problem was range, but even hitting targets a bit closer like railroads would slow down a Red Army advance. And come August, all it would take is one or two "close enough" nuclear bombs to put a big dent in the Soviet command structure.

So had everyone. But the Red Army was on the upswing from its lowest points in 41-42. Both the US and UK Armies on the other hand were at their lowest points of effectiveness in the winter of 44/45 and other issues like access to supplies were a lot tougher for them.

At best the Red Army could drive deep into Germany and into the lowlands, but then what? Sooner or later they would be ground to a halt by the constant attacks on their logistics and Allied troops on the defensive. Even with the Soviets having roughly twice the manpower, it is expecting quite a lot to drive the Allies out of Europe. Also I doubt many of those countries that had just been liberated from the Nazis would appreciate the Soviets rolling in. I am not saying the Patton could have rolled into Moscow, but to say the Soviets could just roll easily to the French coast seems equally absurd.

 

[Orionblamblam]

the reality is the Nazis were extremely keen on having Japan involved in war with America.

That makes sense. What *doesn't* make sense, not even crazy-sense, is your position that the Nazis would think they would be better off by declaring war on the US when they didn't have to.

You can either read through their archives and interview first hand participants like Sir Ian Kershaw or take the information revealed through his book. Otherwise you are just participating in propagation of counter knowledge.

Or perhaps you are explaining your position really, really badly.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That makes sense. What *doesn't* make sense, not even crazy-sense, is your position that the Nazis would think they would be better off by declaring war on the US when they didn't have to.

For the LAST time: this is not my “position” it is historical fact.

 

[Orionblamblam]

That makes sense. What *doesn't* make sense, not even crazy-sense, is your position that the Nazis would think they would be better off by declaring war on the US when they didn't have to.

For the LAST time: this is not my “position” it is historical fact.

Uh-huh. And muggers think they're better off when their victims are armed and can call 911.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Uh-huh. And muggers think they're better off when their victims are armed and can call 911.

??? ??? ???

All the events of history can't be reduced down to a simile to some contemporary American political question. Hitler wanted war with the USA with Japan on his own side for his own reasons and they are well documented and I’ve provided appropriate citations short of re-writing a 1,000 page book. Live in denial as much as you want and keep throwing back various rhetorical responses but it has no bearing on past events and the effects that flowed from them. They’ve already happened. If you want to live in fantasy about them please be my guest but it just makes this thread of discussion tiresome if you keep injecting this ostrich argument at every opportunity.

 

[Orionblamblam]

All the events of history can't be reduced down to a simile to some contemporary American political question.

Obviously, you are wholly incapable of even *understanding* the objection. So, I'm wasting my time.

 

[mz]

Why does it have to be so hostile?

The argument is that Japan attacked USA only with the assurance that Germany would declare war on USA.

I don't know what went on in the heads of axis or allied powers but it would be interesting to discuss this at more length.

Some facts:
Japan was industrially a lightweight compared to Germany.
USA was already economically significantly supporting the Allied forces before Pearl Harbour.
Germans were already sinking American ships.

 

[GTX]

Why does it have to be so hostile?

Obviously because some children can't play nicely with others.

Regards,

Greg

 

[RyanC]

I said nuclear raids would not be available until August 1945. Not because of the B-29s but because of timetable for nuclear bomb construction. Which without any magic wands being waved would mean the USA would only have around 10 bombs of around 10-20kt each up until Mid 1946.

Wrong.

Link

Basically, three bombs a month was the production rate that the MED expected to deliver to the Armed Forces.

In August 1945, we had three bombs -- two were expended on Japanese Targets, with a third winging it's way towards Tinan when the war ended.

By the end of November 1945; we would have ten bombs in our arsenal (counting the third bomb in August 1945).

That's just a rough sketch; I'm sure there's more of this buried in the MED documents at the National Archives detailing their plans for bomb production (interesting note, in the microfilm I skimmed a few months ago, they actually measured plutonium production per month in kilograms).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Basically, three bombs a month was the production rate that the MED expected to deliver to the Armed Forces.

I based my tally on how many nuclear bombs were actually delivered at that time (1946). Perhaps if the war continued past August 45 they would have been built at a higher rate. But the differnce is not significant: ~20 rather than ~10. Now factoring in the difference of the target and the timeline and I can't see how this trickle of relatively low power bombs would be significant against a Soviet attempt to conquer western Europe after VE day.

 

[The Artist]

This discussion has gotten me thinking. (Big mistake!) Are some of the arguments and ideas being presented here too simplistic? I mean, is history a simple land-marked time-line which avails itself to such easy plotting of what-if thoughts? Or, is history a rich tapestry made up of many layers of the threads of the participant's lives woven together?

Can you say with certainty - based on the outcome of battles between British and German that did take place - that the overall outcome of the European war without American forces would be such and such? Several times while reading the entries in this thread I found myself thinking 'For want of a nail . . .'

Let me present this thought. Corporal Cornell, from Dundalk, Maryland, during a minor engagement that is lost to history, shot two German soldiers. He continues his duties until he is wounded in an engagement two weeks before VE Day. Or, with the U.S. staying out of the war, Scott Cornell works for the Glenn L. Martin Aircraft Company in Essex, Maryland. Those German soldiers - who were not killed in that engagement that did not take place - continued with their military careers. One of the solders, a lower officer named Leiber, gains access to some information which enables him to conceive a plan which would shatter the alliance led by England. Leiber's plan is accepted then implemented and the resulting clashes between the allies gives Germany the chance to recover. I know this is an over-reaching 'what if' but I'm using this exaggeration to suggest my point. Can we, in hindsight, accurately judge the lost potential represented by each life lost in battle?

If, as I believe someone suggested within this thread, the U.S. managed to stay out of the war but continued to supply arms and supplies, would we in 1945 have been able to supply the equipment that we were producing and using in the 1945 in which we had taken part in the war? I think not. Take the B-17. The British tried using the early Fortress as a daylight bomber and my understanding is that it was proven to be unsuitable for use in the European air war. Maybe the British would have pressed for the changes that brought about the B-17E but more likely they would have looked to another design. With the U.S. not planning to go to war, would there have been a reason to press on with the B-17 line? Now, without all the experience gained by American forces flying combat missions on a daily basis would the refinements and innovations in bomber design have come about to permit the B-29 to be fully developed as we know it or the B-36 to be developed and fielded by 1946 or 1947? Look at any of our WWII era aircraft and wonder how they'd have fared with U.S. non-direct involvement in the conflict. Could our push for atomic weapons have been suppressed by our non-direct involvement?

As I have admitted, I've used exaggerations to push my argument that rearranging the weave of the individual threads or re-ordering the layers could have a major impact on the finished tapestry. Having presented my thoughts, I'll accept any criticism you'd wish to offer and I look forward to following this overall discussion as it continues.

 

[mz]

I think people have too rosy views of war changing inventions made by individuals and clever strategies etc - it's in large part just a question of resources. If you for example put enough money into researching jet engines (if we assume you have enough of the right experts, if you have an educated society), you get jet engines in a certain time frame. There's some element of randomness perhaps, sometimes some programs fail because of internal problems or inefficiency, and there are other factors, but resources are a really major part of the picture.

The P-51 was ordered by the British for one. I don't know if there's any merit to the idea that the Americans would have built better weapons if there were Americans fighting. There wasn't even a language barrier. It might have gone even the other way.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The P-51 was ordered by the British for one. I don't know if there's any merit to the idea that the Americans would have built better weapons if there were Americans fighting. There wasn't even a language barrier. It might have gone even the other way.

If the US had stayed out of Europe's war, there is every reason to believe that the US space program would have advanced *faster* than it had in real life. IRL, the US took possession of the German rocketeers and technology... and since the Germans had actually produced a functional ballistic missile (and WvB knew how to bullshit with the best of 'em), the American missile and space efforts were basically turned over to the Germans. But the American rocketeers were in many ways two decades more advanced than their German counterparts. Had companies like Douglas and NAA been given the resources to develop their own designs, hydrogen-fueled expendable SSTO's could have potentially flown by the middle of the 1950's

 

[mz]

The P-51 was ordered by the British for one. I don't know if there's any merit to the idea that the Americans would have built better weapons if there were Americans fighting. There wasn't even a language barrier. It might have gone even the other way.

If the US had stayed out of Europe's war, there is every reason to believe that the US space program would have advanced *faster* than it had in real life. IRL, the US took possession of the German rocketeers and technology... and since the Germans had actually produced a functional ballistic missile (and WvB knew how to bullshit with the best of 'em), the American missile and space efforts were basically turned over to the Germans. But the American rocketeers were in many ways two decades more advanced than their German counterparts. Had companies like Douglas and NAA been given the resources to develop their own designs, hydrogen-fueled expendable SSTO's could have potentially flown by the middle of the 1950's

Yes, potentially. Rocket science is not magic, and it annoys me that it is often made to be such. There is some degree of perhaps stumbling upon some solutions, one can read it in Clark's "Ignition!" which devotes basically all efforts to storable rocket propellants.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

But the American rocketeers were in many ways two decades more advanced than their German counterparts. Had companies like Douglas and NAA been given the resources to develop their own designs, hydrogen-fueled expendable SSTO's could have potentially flown by the middle of the 1950's

Yet would they have been given any resources and funding if not for the whole war thing?

 

[The Artist]

I think people have too rosy views of war changing inventions made by individuals and clever strategies etc - it's in large part just a question of resources. If you for example put enough money into researching jet engines (if we assume you have enough of the right experts, if you have an educated society), you get jet engines in a certain time frame. There's some element of randomness perhaps, sometimes some programs fail because of internal problems or inefficiency, and there are other factors, but resources are a really major part of the picture.

The P-51 was ordered by the British for one. I don't know if there's any merit to the idea that the Americans would have built better weapons if there were Americans fighting. There wasn't even a language barrier. It might have gone even the other way.

I think we are pretty much in agreement here. The phrase that eluded me earlier was 'element of chance.' I used that exaggerated example to suggest that the element of chance cannot be ignored when exploring 'what if' questions or even in exploring history in general. We may know the events that led to the American forces locating the Japanese forces first at the start of the Midway battle but what were the elements of chance that led to those events. Did someone get sick or injured - causing a repair task to remain undone for the difference making interval of time? Did someone make the critical decision on what parts to load into the next crate of supplies to be sent to the ship? Or had someone been faced with two tasks of equal value and made the fateful decision of which one to tackle first?

Your example of jet engine research would be full of elements of chance - even with the conditions you set. Was the 'right' approach chosen at the start? If not, did someone on the team happen to be in the right frame of mind to gain the critical insight from what the failures were telling them? With unlimited time and funds, they'd eventually find a solution but doing so within limits of time and funding relies on chance as much as it does on talent.

True - the P-51 (though not with that designation) had been ordered by the British. But, how likely is it that the P-51H that was emerging at the end of the conflict would have even been considered if the continued development of the Mustang relied solely upon the British at the beginning of the conflict? True, the Mustang could have been developed into a better design with only British input but would it have been the same Mustang that we've come to know? And, where in their planning would it have fit against the Spitfire or the Hurricane in the competition for funding?

While threads like this can be interesting to follow and think about, it wouldn't hurt for those who are strongly advocating either side to take some time to consider the elements of chance.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Yet would they have been given any resources and funding if not for the whole war thing?

And what war was that? The US got the Germans and ran the space program *after* the war... during the Cold War with the Soviets. Had the US avoided the European war, and either the Germans or Soviets had taken Europe, there would again have been a Cold War of some kind. Would an American space program staffed and run by Americans have gotten more or less funding if The Other Side had the full complement of goodies from the German program? I'd guess "more."

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I see what you mean, but the prospect of a cold war against a Nazi or Soviet empire spanning all of Europe sounds a bit unsettling.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Yet would they have been given any resources and funding if not for the whole war thing?

And what war was that? The US got the Germans and ran the space program *after* the war... during the Cold War with the Soviets. Had the US avoided the European war, and either the Germans or Soviets had taken Europe, there would again have been a Cold War of some kind. Would an American space program staffed and run by Americans have gotten more or less funding if The Other Side had the full complement of goodies from the German program? I'd guess "more."

So why didn't the USA do so? Operation Paper Clip take von Braun to USA, then the US Gov only let him to do lectures and work for Disney, until they finally let him work on missiles and later lead NASA... because of the controversy of him being ex-Nazi and ex-SS. That's about a decade in which US Gov could let US companies work on their own designs before it was decided to let von Braun do his stuff. ???

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Here's my amateur, subjective, probably unfair review of Avatar. I've mentioned stuff that some of you guys have already mentioned (I've posted the review elsewhere.)

OK then. The first 10-20 minutes were annoying as heck, because the cinema technicians hadn't installed the film correctly or something. There was barely any 3D effect at all, and it was pretty blurry, especially around the subtitles. I thought to myself: Is this the revolution everyone have been talking about? Meh. Even when I don't need subs, I keep direct my vision toward them if they are there. My two friends - who had seen the 2D version a month or so earlier - got tired and went out. (Later they told me they had seen Iron Man 2 instead, though they first planned to go home.) I decided to stay because I didn't want to burn 150 SEK and I thought I could bare the limited 3D.

Luckily, they stopped the film and told us viewers would get refunded, and that they would try to start the film again. When they did that, I could experience the 3D I had expected. Visually, the film was awesome, despite having missed the beginning of the film, as it should have been viewed. Even though I noticed the plot holes, clichés, etc, I quickly forgave them temporarily. I'm thankful I didn't see the film in 2D earlier.

So, what didn't I like? Well, first the clichés:

They *had* to make the hero crippled. : I guess there are several lame persons who are bitter and who would do anything to be able to walk again, on the other hand there are several lame persons who live fulfilling lives.

The whole white man's burden/noble savage combo. I guess making a story based on, lets say the Hutu/Tutsi conflict would be too controversial. : That being said, I have an affection for these type of stories, just not the Pocahontas variety. I prefer (Michael Mann's) The Last of the Mohicans and Lawrence of Arabia.

They *had* to make Earth depleted of its resources. Well then humans wouldn't try to steal unobtanium, they would terraform Pandora's biosphere so humans could live and breathe there. Making Earth dying does nothing to progress the story, apart from adding to the moralist message.

The thefts (aside from Pocahontas and Dancing With Wolves):

The whole Avatar deal, including the lame main character, is stolen from a short story by Poul Anderson. I guess it's not enough to steal from Harlan Ellison... :

Cameron has acknowledged to be inspired from is Edgar Rice Burrough's John Carter of Mars tales. Interestingly, the John Carter tales are public domain now... How convenient. :

The evil, corrupt military. : I get it Cameron, you have a thing against Robert Heinlein and Starship Troopers. Get over it.

The evil, corrupt capitalists. : It's funny that short-sighed fiscal year oriented capitalists would be able to operate mines light years away from Earth. Because they wouldn't - such post modern speculators would invest in media outlets, perhaps a "Survivor: Pandora" show. It would take 5 years plans, maybe even 10- or 20 years plans to operate such an huge investment.

Other things that nagged me:

The Navi fight the Human Space Marines like they were equal to them in fire power and man power. That's, pardon my French, retarded. Navi would have to fight the Space Marines indirectly, as guerrillas, to deal out as huge attrition as possible, in order to make the occupation as expensive as possible. They would have to get modern weapons like the ones the Marines had ASAP, just as the North American Indians did in order to be able to fight the US Army.

The evil mining company and its Marines could have nuked the planet *any* time they wanted, since the biosphere wasn't of interest to them. Or better still, ship and drop meteors and asteroids toward the planet and then blame the deaths on unfortunate natural disasters (if any media service would get to know about it).

If Cameron had to 1. steal from Pocahontas and 2. mention the dying Earth, he should have made Jake Sully and Neytiri travel to Earth so Neytiri could understand why the humans did what they did, and perhaps spread the green, holistic gospel to the fallen humans.

All that being said, the film was enjoyable, but I still don't get the fuss about it. Star Wars, it ain't.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

All that being said, the film was enjoyable, but I still don't get the fuss about it. Star Wars, it ain't.

I think this *fuss* is a mixture of commercial hype and romanticism politics. The highest grossing film tally is beloved of hype-merchants but a crazy benchmark even when it is adjusted for inflation (and most lists don’t). Even an inflation adjusted list doesn’t adjust for accessible audience growth (per capita). Of course “Avatar” is going to make more inflation adjusted dollars than “Bambi” because the total potential international audience has grown from 500 million to four billion in 70 years. But if you adjust for growth in audience “Bambi” makes twice the money per capita than “Avatar”. The film for all its faults also nicely corresponds with a romanticism driven perspective of our society and its problems. Of course tribal farmer societies are the most war driven, resource abusing and exploitative of all human societies * but you need to actually know something about them to realize that rather than base your understanding on romantic urges about getting back to nature.

* “Constant Battles: Why We Fight” by Steven A. LeBlanc

 

[sferrin]

One thing "adjusted for inflation" lists can't really quantify is competition. How much money would "The Dark Knight" have made back in 1977 when it didn't have to compete with the internet and DVD players?

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

All that being said, the film was enjoyable, but I still don't get the fuss about it. Star Wars, it ain't.

I think this *fuss* is a mixture of commercial hype and romanticism politics. The highest grossing film tally is beloved of hype-merchants but a crazy benchmark even when it is adjusted for inflation (and most lists don’t). Even an inflation adjusted list doesn’t adjust for accessible audience growth (per capita). Of course “Avatar” is going to make more inflation adjusted dollars than “Bambi” because the total potential international audience has grown from 500 million to four billion in 70 years. But if you adjust for growth in audience “Bambi” makes twice the money per capita than “Avatar”. The film for all its faults also nicely corresponds with a romanticism driven perspective of our society and its problems. Of course tribal farmer societies are the most war driven, resource abusing and exploitative of all human societies * but you need to actually know something about them to realize that rather than base your understanding on romantic urges about getting back to nature.

* “Constant Battles: Why We Fight” by Steven A. LeBlanc

To be fair to Avatar; the Navi are hunter-gatherers and biologists today claim that the first Homo Sapiens were nice fellas who chewed food for the elderly and stuff. It was first when people started to farm and store food it became possible to create governments and armies who warred against each other. Or so the scientists think now, for 25-50 years the general opinion on early humans was much different. (Personally I like to have cable TV, WWW, distant heating, vaccine, antibiotics etc.)

Good point about the hype.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

To be fair to Avatar; the Navi are hunter-gatherers and biologists today claim that the first Homo Sapiens were nice fellas who chewed food for the elderly and stuff. It was first when people started to farm and store food it became possible to create governments and armies who warred against each other. Or so the scientists think now, for 25-50 years the general opinion on early humans was much different. (Personally I like to have cable TV, WWW, distant heating, vaccine, antibiotics etc.)

Actually… According to the ‘source notes’ provided by ASMCI as a link way back in this thread (before all the WW2 stuff) and their level of cultural sophistication the Navi are tribal farmers. Because killing animals for food would be too horrific for the romance crowd the Navi apparently farm some kind of underground protein fungus. It’s ridiculous sure but the kind of sophistication in clothing and accoutrements they have is indicative of a settled society with food surpluses able to support artisans. Which is not hunter-gathering but very much tribal farming. Archaeological and anthropological evidence indicates tribal farmers societies had a higher death rate too war than the peaks of WW1 and WW1. Their posturing and running back and forth with spears may look ridiculous compared to a tank jet fighter but they rack up the body count – around 25% of all male adults dieing in war. War over food was a constant part of this kind of life because despite the efficiencies of farming you became very susceptible to the patterns of weather and resource depletion. Of course when the Navi rock fungus crop failed they could just dial up their global tree computer and some forest bovines would present themselves for food or whatever.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

To be fair to Avatar; the Navi are hunter-gatherers and biologists today claim that the first Homo Sapiens were nice fellas who chewed food for the elderly and stuff. It was first when people started to farm and store food it became possible to create governments and armies who warred against each other. Or so the scientists think now, for 25-50 years the general opinion on early humans was much different. (Personally I like to have cable TV, WWW, distant heating, vaccine, antibiotics etc.)

Actually… According to the ‘source notes’ provided by ASMCI as a link way back in this thread (before all the WW2 stuff) and their level of cultural sophistication the Navi are tribal farmers. Because killing animals for food would be too horrific for the romance crowd the Navi apparently farm some kind of underground protein fungus. It’s ridiculous sure but the kind of sophistication in clothing and accoutrements they have is indicative of a settled society with food surpluses able to support artisans. Which is not hunter-gathering but very much tribal farming. Archaeological and anthropological evidence indicates tribal farmers societies had a higher death rate too war than the peaks of WW1 and WW1. Their posturing and running back and forth with spears may look ridiculous compared to a tank jet fighter but they rack up the body count – around 25% of all male adults dieing in war. War over food was a constant part of this kind of life because despite the efficiencies of farming you became very susceptible to the patterns of weather and resource depletion. Of course when the Navi rock fungus crop failed they could just dial up their global tree computer and some forest bovines would present themselves for food or whatever.

Damn.

The Navis are Nazis in disguise.

They're xenophobic, aggressive, almost nudists, vegetarians (and hypocritical about it too), living in what they think is Utopia, having a holistic, romantic and idealistic world view, etc.

They're based on Native Americans, who used to be called Indians because Columbus thought he was in Asia, and Asian Indians were thought to be partially Aryan. Also, the tragedy of Native Americans are used by xenophobes as an example against immigration. :

... and the biological network is Skynet in disguise. :

Drop the MacArthur and send the nukes, or was it the other way around?













This post, and the portrayal of any characters in it, is entirely fictitious. Any references to true events are entirely coincidental.

 

[Simon666]

The evil, corrupt military. : I get it Cameron, you have a thing against Robert Heinlein and Starship Troopers. Get over it.

Starship Troopers is actually regarded by some as advocating militarism, but if you actually read the book or watch the movie you'll find it shows the inflexibility and stupidity of a purely militaristic mindset. It also shows that it ultimately comes down to fascism, certainly if you watch the movie.

 

[RanulfC]

The evil, corrupt military. : I get it Cameron, you have a thing against Robert Heinlein and Starship Troopers. Get over it.

Starship Troopers is actually regarded by some as advocating militarism, but if you actually read the book or watch the movie you'll find it shows the inflexibility and stupidity of a purely militaristic mindset. It also shows that it ultimately comes down to fascism, certainly if you watch the movie.

NOTE please: MOVIE(S) (there are three of them and a CGI cartoon based on the first movie... sort of) and BOOK are TWO VERY SEPERATE things! Seriously....

Personally I've read SST about a hundred times since I was 15 and each reading reveals more depth and "points" to the story. While the movie(s) and the CGI cartoon portrayed very different settings from the book and even each other and tended towards the worst examples of military thinking the book has a good background on WHY the "Federation" is the way it is and even more so depth in character development and story.

The first movie specificaly takes out of context ALL the "militerism" people tend to complain about from the book with no real regard as to the actual structure of the background. Worse yet, (especially since the director is ex-military himself) we're shown a "military" that can barely stand up to hordes of mindless foes with little or no battle tactics let alone any credible counter military force. I'd really love someone to do another rendition that is more true to the story and preferably with enough time (mini-series at least) and effort to provide the depth of story, background, and character development that the book has. Until then I'll just keep recommending everyone read the book at LEAST twice before passing judgment on it.

Randy

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

The evil, corrupt military. : I get it Cameron, you have a thing against Robert Heinlein and Starship Troopers. Get over it.

Starship Troopers is actually regarded by some as advocating militarism, but if you actually read the book or watch the movie you'll find it shows the inflexibility and stupidity of a purely militaristic mindset. It also shows that it ultimately comes down to fascism, certainly if you watch the movie.

NOTE please: MOVIE(S) (there are three of them and a CGI cartoon based on the first movie... sort of) and BOOK are TWO VERY SEPERATE things! Seriously....

Personally I've read SST about a hundred times since I was 15 and each reading reveals more depth and "points" to the story. While the movie(s) and the CGI cartoon portrayed very different settings from the book and even each other and tended towards the worst examples of military thinking the book has a good background on WHY the "Federation" is the way it is and even more so depth in character development and story.

The first movie specifically takes out of context ALL the "militarism" people tend to complain about from the book with no real regard as to the actual structure of the background. Worse yet, (especially since the director is ex-military himself) we're shown a "military" that can barely stand up to hordes of mindless foes with little or no battle tactics let alone any credible counter military force. I'd really love someone to do another rendition that is more true to the story and preferably with enough time (mini-series at least) and effort to provide the depth of story, background, and character development that the book has. Until then I'll just keep recommending everyone read the book at LEAST twice before passing judgement on it.

Randy

Thanks, you pointed out the flaws of the film(s) (I've only seen the first one, directed by Paul Verhoeven) better and more objectively than I could.

I like also to point out that at least Verhoeven's film makes the sin of making simplistic argumentum ad Hitlerum by connecting the Mobile Infantry to Waffen-SS simply by making the Infantry wear black uniforms and using young soldiers at the end of the film. The Mobile Infantry in the book were supposed to be a combo of US Marines and Paratroopers in space, using some kind of battle suits with exoskeletons IIRC (instead of tanks). In the film, we got ugly containers. Verhoeven also re-used the ironic TV-news clips that worked so well in the RoboCop film(s) (he directed the first one), which did not exist in the novel. Verhoeven himself has (at least allegedly) admitted that he did only read the first pages of the novel and didn't bother to read the rest, and it shows.

The only thing Verhoeven really got right was the part on gender equality.