Its already brought up in every article about the movie. Why ignore it? People will notice. Last I heard they are going to call the dog Digger and change nothing else.
I love how the question on everybody’s lips the moment they hear about this film is, “What’ll they call the dog?”
Why the hell would they want to make two more Hobbit… wait, what? Zombies, you say?
Okay, a Hobbit Zombie movie might work, but certainly not two of them.
Watch the original trailer in post #14. The dog’s name is right in the trailer.
Look at the earlier posts, starting at Post #3. This is an elderly thread and both times I opened it with the intention of asking, only to find myself late to the party.
It was a non-issue in 1943.
You seem to be forgetting the extensive German bombing raids on British cities, resulting in high civilian casualties. Apart from London, which was the main target, Germany bombed Liverpool, Hull, Bristol, Cardiff, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Southampton, Swansea, Birmingham, Belfast, Glasgow, Manchester, Sheffield, and Coventry. Not to mention the high civilian casualties everywhere in Europe and the Soviet Union where there was fighting.
A major industrial area like the Ruhr Valley was considered a legitimate target, and there was no debate about it.
Yes it was largely a non-issue at the time. However when one makes a film about another era, one doesn’t normally accept its norms at face value.
For example, Japanese-American internment was widely accepted in the US at the time but a film about it made today
would obviously not share that outlook.
I don’t think it was wrong under the circumstances, even by modern standards.
In a total war, where you are fighting for survival, damaging the enemy’s capacity to manufacture armaments is crucial.
If the Allies had refused to bomb shipyards, harbours, factories, airports, railways, oil production facilities, etc. because civilians might have been killed, while the Germans had no such scruples, Allied casualties - both military and civilian - would have been far higher. The war would have lasted much longer. Millions more would have died in German concentration camps and prisoner of war camps. About 5 million prisoners of war died anyway, in German and Japanese prison camps. So much for the Geneva Convention.
There are a few incidents, like the fire-bombing of Dresden and the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan, that are controversial today. But nobody, even today, is saying that armaments factories shouldn’t have been attacked.
I’ll be happy with just a really good performance of Eric Coates’ “Dam Busters March” over the credits, not that tinny studio version in the original. It’s one of the most soaring and inspiring compositions every written IMHO, and deserves to be better known.
Also, Jackson had better use real Lancs (a couple still fly), not CGI. The graphics software is a lot better than it used to be but you can still tell.
Bolding mine
It was also accepted in Canada. How would a Canadian citizens’ outlook be?
By modern standards, this operation would almost certainly be considered a war crime and any leader who authorized it would be in serious danger of a war crime trial.
This was not an operation where there “might” be civilian casualties but one where massive civilian casualties were guaranteed and did in fact happen. And in fact the military value of the attack was fairly limited and the dams were repaired quite quickly.
It’s been a long time since there were any such things as civilians in a war, hasn’t it? As for the raid’s not having the strategic value that was expected, that hardly makes it a war crime.
As for the dog’s name, if it has to have one, use “Blackie” or something similar. If anyone complains, Jackson can say “You know why. Next question?”
You haven’t answered any of the points I raised, or put forward any facts to justify your opinion.
Sorry, but that kind of over-refined chivalry by one side in WW2 would have been simply crazy by any standards. It was a war of self-defence and survival against an utterly immoral, viciously aggressive, mass-murdering slave-empire. It was not a ‘civilised’ or limited war, or a war between moral equals.
Your points, which are really just unsupported assertions, aren’t relevant to my claim which is that by modern standards the operation would have been considered a war crime. A simple perusal of the 1949 Geneva Conventions is sufficient to establish that.
I don’t believe that’s the case. If you claim it is, then cite the relevant passages. Don’t expect me to do your research for you.
However, IMO this whole argument is pretty irrelevant to the forthcoming movie.
According to the “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.”:
"…Art 56. Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces
-
Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.
-
The special protection against attack provided by paragraph 1 shall cease:
(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
© for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support…"
Took about 15 seconds to find.
Article 56 of the Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions says:
“Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population”
For ordinary bombing, the accuracy of the day didn’t allow for targets much smaller than cities. If you wanted to bomb a weapons factory (a legitimate target even by modern standards), pretty much the only way to do it was by targeting the city the factories were in.
The dam raids had smaller targets, but they were also much more difficult and risky. And you have to weigh the results of the dambusting raids against the results of other methods of attack.
OK, those two quotes of the Geneva Conventions snuck in before my post. I’m surprised about nuclear facilities not being valid targets: They give an exception for where their electrical production is mostly used for military purposes, but there are a lot of ways you can use a nuclear facility for dual purposes, both producing civilian electricity and supporting a nuclear weapons program. Surely, a breeder reactor should be considered a legitimate military target?
Thanks to brossa.
“… in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;”
This applies.