Posted on 09/15/2009 8:32:05 AM PDT by Ge0ffrey
Has any mainstream media outlet mentioned the Patrick Swayze movie that made moonbats nuts during the Reagan era?
A Politically Incorrect Vision of Guerilla War by John Milius When Hollywood decides to make a “controversial” film, it is usually about a subject or theme that the Hollywood community, which tends to be to the left of the political spectrum, agrees on and the movie watching audience does not. In 1984, director John Milius, fresh from successful films like The Wind and the Lion and Conan the Barbarian, decided to create controversy in a different way. He made Red Dawn, a film depicting the Soviet invasion of the United States and the efforts of partisans, mainly high school kids, to fight them off. Hollywood has never forgiven Milius for doing this.
Red Dawn starts in the “near future” (from circa 1984), when NATO has collapsed, Mexico has fallen to Marxist revolution, and America, in essence, “stands alone.” A High School history class in a small town in Colorado is being treated to a lecture about Geingas Khan. Quietly, almost unobtrusively, a Soviet parachute unit is dropping down in the footfall field outside. The teacher is killed, students are killed, and pandemonium breaks out.
A group of students, along with an older youth played by Patrick Swayze, flee into the wilderness, armed with hunting rifles and supplies taken from a gas station/convenience store owned by one of their fathers. At first they survive by hunting and fishing, but soon find that their town is occupied by a Soviet Army that is also comprised of Cubans and Nicaraguans. An incident with some Russians soldiers occurs with the Russians winding up dead, weapons are captured, and the guerilla war is on.
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
And when asked if we had any allies in the war... the Colonel said that we had “500 million screaming Chinese”.
Too bad that line will fly over the heads of most Americans nowadays.
That's always been Hollywood BS.
Before they are all gone, talk to some WWII combat vets. Not all Germans who 'surrendered' made it to some POW camp. At times, the small units that took them simply could not afford the man power to make that happen. The Germans applied that same philosophy. At the The Battle of the Bulge with the 'Malmedy ' massacre of US troops for instance. They were moving fast and did not have time or resources to deal with POWs. That is just a harsh fact, albeit because of the mass execution at Malmady, the NAZI commandes ended up at Nurenburg and a date with the hangman's noose.
In the Pacific, few Japanese tried to surrender, and after reports that some who pretended to surrender pulled grenades to kill themselves and whatever GI was near, (1940's suicide bombers) ever fewer were even given the opportunity to surrender through the course of the war. If a GI could see a 'Jap', they killed them, with no remorse.
War is Hell. Avoid it if possible.
In reality a military invasion of the US is nigh on impossible. The sheer size of the country would be obstacle enough, in spite of the fact that it would guarantee the defenders air superiority.
The real danger is the “slow invasion”, the slow corruption of the mind and spirit of the population.
I was talking about a full-scale military invasion, which is what “Red Dawn” posits.
The Monroe doctrine was an utter crock. It was designed purely to “twist the lion’s tail” and thereby help Monroe to win Elections. He knew full well it was unneccesary. There was no way any European power had neither the inclination or the capability to conquer the US.
You didn't know?
Atlas Shrugged has been started on several occassions. I think a 4 hour movie couln’t do it justice. That said the book was twice as long as it needed to be. A movie would get more audience but a mini series would do it justice.
Finished watching, and enjoyed it. Then went Googling, as good historically-based films often motivate me to do.
I found this:
http://www.rescuedawnthetruth.com/
The last known surviving member of the group of escaped prisoners, a Thai named Pisidhi Indradat, has some harsh criticism of the film. In particular, the Gene DeBruin character, who wasn’t like he was represented on film, at all.
>>> Gene DeBruin character <<<
If I recall, his family has also criticized the film depiction, and Werner Herzog has responded albeit rather weakly, because he partially admits his errors and some minor regret.
I side with Herzog that it’s a film, not a biography.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.