History Headscratchers / RedDawn1984

*** Tell that to US troops from the vietnam, iraq and afghan conflicts who were LITERALLY INVADERS, shot civilians (excuse me,"iNsUrGeNtS") and yet still complain bitterly about having been shot at.

** There is an understandable reluctance to go anywhere near the Russian tanks that are in the process of being shot at by American tanks, especially after the Colonel dies from friendly fire while doing precisely that.

** Maybe whoever was in charge decided that it was better Red than Dead. That was always the big unknown in the Cold War, would the US President really do it. Would they decided to irradiate the world and doom humanity to living in the dark ages (at best), or would they treat the nuclear arsenal as a big bluff and once it had been called; decide that it was better lose and have some vestiges of their nation (not to mention every other nation on Earth) survive and maybe rise again. Its never really been answered, thank God, and you can certainly argue some Presidents would be more likely to go one way and some the other, but we'll never really know now. So maybe in this, the President at the time was one that decided that it was better to be conquered and use mostly conventional weapons to resist. If you think that sounds far-fetched; when they first developed Atomic Weapons in the Manhattan project and were working out the maths on whether they would ignite the atmosphere, it was decided that if the chance of atmosphere ignition were higher than ''three in one million'' it was better to let the Nazis and Japanese win (even if it meant occupation of the continental United States), in order that human life would continue and freedom one day be won again.

* Something that confuses me is the opening scene, and its juxtaposition with a few other elements. 1. Why are these Russian soldiers not only firing on unarmed civilians at a rural high school, but expending precious resources such as rockets on destroying said high school? It literally serves no purpose other than from a narrative standpoint to show that the enemy is bad. And they just keep committing atrocities in their occupied territory, such as mass graves and raping the local women, yet Bella remarks multiple times about how these kinds of things led to guerilla warfare. That leads into 2. If you know so much about what causes partisans to form, WHY DON'T YOU STOP CAUSING THE THINGS THAT MAKE PEOPLE REBEL AGAINST YOU?!? This literally only happens until the new commander comes in and tells them there will be no more civilian reprisals, which brings me to 3. How can a Spetsnaz soldier invoke the Geneva Convention when his side is just as guilty of war crimes as his opponents?

** You forget that the President isn't the only one involved in this decision. If the Russians nuked the midwest, took out NORAD(presumably) and invaded the midwest in an surprise first strike, if the President decided that even a soviet first strike and executing American civilians in occupied areas and putting Americans in gulags wasn't enough to warrant nuclear retaliation, I can imagine congress, not to mention to Joint Chiefs and the DoD, would be looking for anyway to remove the President from office and put someone into office who would strike back. Though just allowing the Russians to invade the US mainland and Nuke us would likely be more the enough for the president's approval rating to drop to 0% pretty damn quickly. Refusing to strike back would be asking for a military coup.

** Just because they are an invading army doesn't mean they are still people. People who have hobbies and loved ones and dreams. It's like people who are weirded out by pictures of evil people throughout history doing regular things. It's not like Hitler spent all his free time sitting in the dark, wringing his hands, and muttering "Jews...".

** Plus, this is the Soviet Army. Failure to [[JustFollowingOrders just follow orders]] tends to result in you [[YouHaveFailedMe sharing a grave with the people you're supposed to be oppressing]].

** The scene was probably haphazardly added when the writer realized he was getting a little ''too'' jingoistic. But it's really the banality of evil. Shooting civilians is their day job, and their failure to question their orders makes them terrible people, but they are still people, and [[WarIsHell war is hell]].

** You forget that the President isn't the only one involved in this decision. If the Russians nuked the midwest, took out NORAD(presumably) and invaded the midwest in an suprise first strike, if the President decided that even a soviet first strike and executing American civilians in occupied areas and putting Americans in gulags wasn't enough to warrent nuclear reliation, I can imagine congress, not to mention to Joint Chiefs and the DoD, would be looking for anyway to remove the President from office and put someone into office who would strike back. Though just allowing the Russians to invade the US mainland and Nuke us would likely be more the enough for the president's approval rating to drop to 0% pretty damn quickly. Refusing to strike back would be asking for a military coup.

* Is it just me, or is the NotSoDifferent moment in the movie completely pointless? In what way are the Wolverines in any way like the Soviets? The Soviets are an invading force that has used nuclear warfare and executed civilians. The Wolverines have...killed enemy combatants. Not to mention they're guerilla fighters and dont have the capacity to take and keep prisoners of war, making execution the only logistical alternative. So how exactly does the comparison work?

** The scene was probably haphazardly added when the writer realized he was getting a little ''too'' jingoistic. But it's really the banality of evil. Shooting civilians is their day job, and their failure to question their orders makes them terrible people, but they are still people, and [[WarIsHell]].

** Except they are LITERALLY INVADERS. Who shoot down unarmed, helpless civilians in the street. Even the most naive, idealistic soldier would have trouble justifying that to themselves. You cant invade a country and complain when the people living there shoot at you.

** The Soviet footsoldiers did not make the decision to launch nuclear weapons or invade a foreign nation. They're just some young guys serving their country and doing what they're told, not entirely unlike many of the Wolverines.
** Except they are LITERALLY INVADERS. Who shoot down unarmed, helpless civilians in the street. Even the most naive, idealistic soldier would have trouble justifying that to themselves. You cant invade a country and complain when the people living there shoot at you.
*** Yes they can, chalk it up to a combination of MoralMyopia and RealityIsUnrealistic. Consider the reaction of the general public, and coalition active combatants, during the 2000s to troop casualties in Iraq. [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement And that is all I'm going to say on that subject]].

*** Except that is a complete myth about the Iraqi T-72's, most of them in Gulf-war 1, were soviet spec'd and were not only Republican Guard (saddam's elite) but also followed Soviet Tank doctrine to the letter. The truth is, that while American expectations of the soviet armor divisions were high, by the 1980's NATIO armor divisions outclassed the soviet divisions, especially with things like DU armor and better optics. Where as both had guns capable of reaching 4000m+, only the M1 could shoot that far and shoot as far as 2500m while moving. The only reason the 72 was still produced is because the T-80 was having massive production issues, which was crippled by the failing soviet (and recovering post-soviet) economy. Hence why the Chinese moved to a T-99 platform and now the russians are moving to that new T-90 and T-14.

** Ironically, as the incredibly lopsided kill ratios in the two Gulf Wars showed, an actual tank battle between one M1 Abrams and two T-72s would have been over in a matter of seconds and the Wolverines wouldn't even have had time to get involved. But in 1985 everyone was too gulled by Soviet propaganda/taking counsel from their fears to recognize that Soviet tanks would prove to be little more than shooting gallery ducks against the M1. If the soviets went through the Fulda Gap they would have been jammed up with too many hollowed out 72's till it was a stand still. The only reason the 72 was still produced is because the T-80 was having massive production issues, which was crippled by the failing soviet (and recovering post-soviet) economy. Hence why the Chinese moved to a T-99 platform and now the russians are moving to that new T-90 and T-14.

*** Except that is a complete myth about the Iraqi T-72's, most of them in Gulf-war 1, were soviet spec'd and were not only Republican Guard (saddam's elite) but also followed Soviet Tank doctrine to the letter. The truth is, that while American expectations of the soviet armor divisions were high, by the 1980's NATIO armor divisions outclassed the soviet divisions, especially with things like DU armor and better optics. Where as both had guns capable of reaching 4000m+, only the M1 could shoot that far and shoot as far as 2500m while moving.

** Ironically, as the incredibly lopsided kill ratios in the two Gulf Wars showed, an actual tank battle between one M1 Abrams and two T-72s would have been over in a matter of seconds and the Wolverines wouldn't even have had time to get involved. But in 1985 everyone was too gulled by Soviet propaganda/taking counsel from their fears to recognize that Soviet tanks would prove to be little more than shooting gallery ducks against the M1.

** Except they are LITERALLY INVADERS. Who shoot down unarmed, helpless civilians in the street. Even the most naive, idealistic soldier would have trouble justifying that to themselves. You cant invade a country and complain when the people living there shoot at you.

** The Soviet footsoldiers did not make the decision to launch nuclear weapons or invade a foreign nation. They're just some young guys serving their country and doing what they're told, not entirely unlike many of the Wolverines.

* Is it just me, or is the NotSoDifferent moment in the movie completely pointless? In what way are the Wolverines in any way like the Soviets? The Soviets are an invading force that has used nuclear warfare and executed civilians. The Wolverines have...killed enemy combatants. Not to mention they're guerilla fighters and dont have the capacity to take and keep prisoners of war, making execution the only logistical alternative. So how exactly does the comparison work?