If Soviets broke into a U.S. base in '57, would it have started a war?

FBI guy #1:



FBI guy #2:



The guys in the car, which is following the Russians who are following Indy and Mutt:




The question is, are they following Indy independently of the Russians, because they suspect him? That's what I think, as after the Russian car crashes into Brody's statue the FBI disappear.

Matt deMille said:

Short answer: This incident would NOT have started a war.

Why? Area 51 didn't officially exist until 1995. And whether it's the US or the USSR killing personnel there (many Area 51 workers have died over the years in strange incidents), the government will just cover it all up. Basically, anyone at Area 51 is fishbait. To go to war over their deaths would never happen, because in doing so, the government would have to admit that Area 51 is real, and by proxy, that there's secrets there (especially in the '50s, a time when everyone trusted the "good ol' government"). Breaking it down: The deaths of some soldiers and the loss of one relic were an "acceptable loss" compared to revealing the secrets of the base. That's how the black government works, folks.

Click to expand...

Sorry, not buying it. Whether the base was "secret" or not is irrelevant.

What was actually *at* the base is similarly irrelevant. Wouldn't matter, they literally invaded the US. We wouldn't have to acknowledge the "secret" contents of the base to simply be upset that our soldiers were murdered.

So as long as they aren't attacking, say, the White House or whatever, then the Soviets were free to invade American soil with SOLDIERS and shoot up our SOLDIERS? Um, no.

U2 spy planes were also "secret", but one of them still caused an international incident. The Soviets didn't just pretend it didn't happen because "that's how governments work."

Montana Smith said:

The question is, are they following Indy independently of the Russians, because they suspect him? That's what I think, as after the Russian car crashes into Brody's statue the FBI disappear.

Click to expand...

Holy crap, are they really the same guys?!

Montana Smith said:

The question is, are they following Indy independently of the Russians, because they suspect him? That's what I think, as after the Russian car crashes into Brody's statue the FBI disappear.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the only sensible explanation. Conspiracy theories aside, there's no reason to think otherwise.

No doubt he looks similar, in a sort of dressed in a suit from the 50s sort of way, but look at some other pictures and he doesn't look like the same guy. Not to me anyway. That said, the FBI following the soviets explanation fits very well. I'll give it a closer look next time I watch it.

StoneTriple said:

No doubt he looks similar, in a sort of dressed in a suit from the 50s sort of way, but look at some other pictures and he doesn't look like the same guy. Not to me anyway. That said, the FBI following the soviets explanation fits very well. I'll give it a closer look next time I watch it.

Click to expand...

Two pieces of evidence that seem to push in opposite directions, but I'm putting them out there.

Here's the full credits list. Smith (The FBI agent in question) and his partner Johnson are the only possible feds on the list.

But then, despite the seemingly identical pair of glasses and very similar features, I can't quite tell whether Flynn and the man driving the car have the same ears. Check out the lobes.

Lance Quazar said:

Sorry, not buying it. Whether the base was "secret" or not is irrelevant.

What was actually *at* the base is similarly irrelevant. Wouldn't matter, they literally invaded the US. We wouldn't have to acknowledge the "secret" contents of the base to simply be upset that our soldiers were murdered.

So as long as they aren't attacking, say, the White House or whatever, then the Soviets were free to invade American soil with SOLDIERS and shoot up our SOLDIERS? Um, no.

U2 spy planes were also "secret", but one of them still caused an international incident. The Soviets didn't just pretend it didn't happen because "that's how governments work."

Click to expand...

When the U2 was shot down, the Soviets had a perfect chance to make us look bad without giving up anything of their own. Certainly if Soviets exposed themselves in a more public place we'd be all over it. The difference is that they invaded Area 51, so the government simply could not say "Reds here!" without admitting where "here" is. Believe me, Area 51 was and is so tightly kept a secret that nobody would go to bat for a few dead soldiers. I don't mean to trivialize the death of any soldier. I am emphasizing how seriously the black government keeps Area 51 secret.

Attila the Professor said:

Two pieces of evidence that seem to push in opposite directions, but I'm putting them out there.

Here's the full credits list. Smith (The FBI agent in question) and his partner Johnson are the only possible feds on the list.

But then, despite the seemingly identical pair of glasses and very similar features, I can't quite tell whether Flynn and the man driving the car have the same ears. Check out the lobes.

Click to expand...

To my eyes there's no doubt that they are the same Feds in the car.

The eyes and nose of #1, the glasses and jaw on #2. I think they were just keeping track of Indy's movements, still suspecting him of being a communist as he's on McCarthy's blacklist.

Lance Quazar said:

Sorry, not buying it. Whether the base was "secret" or not is irrelevant.

What was actually *at* the base is similarly irrelevant. Wouldn't matter, they literally invaded the US. We wouldn't have to acknowledge the "secret" contents of the base to simply be upset that our soldiers were murdered.

So as long as they aren't attacking, say, the White House or whatever, then the Soviets were free to invade American soil with SOLDIERS and shoot up our SOLDIERS? Um, no.

U2 spy planes were also "secret", but one of them still caused an international incident. The Soviets didn't just pretend it didn't happen because "that's how governments work."

Click to expand...

I can still see the Area 51 incident being hushed up. Every country knows that other countries are spying on them, and when they're caught out there's a lot of posturing in order to get something in return.

With the case of the Area 51 incident there's the embarrassment of a Russian break-in at one of the United State's most secretive installations. If that went public there would be a total lack of faith in the government to protect it's citizens, and questions about what the location was and what the Russians were after.

In a case like that neither side would want to take their countries into nuclear war, but the threat of war would allow for each side to negotiate. The USSR would claim it was a rogue faction, and play down any involvement. The US would raise the level of alertness and increase protection at other facilities, and negotiate a favourable outcome.

The dead US soldiers would be classed as expendable, just they would be in countless other incidents. That war did not occur in KOTCS is testament to the Government cover-up which also kept the Ark secret, along with the real find at Roswell. Indy vs bureaucracy was established in the first movie, and in KOTCS the level of Government paranoia has greatly increased.

Hey, Montana and I agree on something. Cool.

Yeah, they're the same guys alright, but I always just thought of them as Reds, not Feds. Don't they flee when the cops are coming? Why would Feds do that?

Plus, it's cooler if the FBI are bad guys. Indy's always in over his head.

Matt deMille said:

Hey, Montana and I agree on something. Cool.

Click to expand...

Surely it can't last for long!

Matt deMille said:

Yeah, they're the same guys alright, but I always just thought of them as Reds, not Feds. Don't they flee when the cops are coming? Why would Feds do that?

Plus, it's cooler if the FBI are bad guys. Indy's always in over his head.

Click to expand...

Because I and at least some others here missed the connection between Indy's interrogators and the guys in the car, I think that the Feds as secret Reds angle was unintentional. The angle they were after was more likely the one that Indy was still under suspicion by the government agents, which would highlight once more the McCarthy 'Reds under the bed' paranoia, and the blacklisting of many US citizens who occupied influential or professional positions (Indy being influential as a teacher, the hotbed for ideological thinking).

Montana Smith said:

Because I and at least some others here missed the connection between Indy's interrogators and the guys in the car, I think that the Feds as secret Reds angle was unintentional. The angle they were after was more likely the one that Indy was still under suspicion by the government agents, which would highlight once more the McCarthy 'Reds under the bed' paranoia, and the blacklisting of many US citizens who occupied influential or professional positions (Indy being influential as a teacher, the hotbed for ideological thinking).

Click to expand...

Yes. These movies are not subtle, the filmmakers do not conceal vital story details from the vast majority of the audience. There is never a callback to this scene at all, it isn't referred to later or made part of the story.

There are no secret layers in the Indy films - what you see is what you get. We aren't meant to go looking for hidden meaning.

I'm on the no war side. Russians breaking into a military warehouse would be covered over quickly. The result would just be an increase in security & panic as to how it could have happened - which is exactly what we see in the film. They don't seem nearly as bothered by the Russians making it in as they do about how. Russians on American soil? - what did you really do during the war Dr. Jones? How long have you known McHale? - we'll be watching you"

As far as the sentries are concerned; They were stationed at a weapons testing facility. "We're sorry to inform you Mrs.... but there was an accident. Your husband served with honor".

Actually, there ARE subtle layers in both the Indy and Star Wars films. It may sound absurd, but they are there.

For example, the Ark. Why were there no snakes on or around it? Why didn't Indy need torches when he got close to it? In fact, he throws his torch away. It's never explained . . . except in the script. In the script the Ark radiates an energy that drives the snakes away (the same as the crystal skull does to the ants). Yet in Raiders, this subtle detail is never mentioned or alluded to at all. it's left as a very subtle (but very important) story element.

So, the Feds being Reds could very well have been the case.

Matt deMille said:

Actually, there ARE subtle layers in both the Indy and Star Wars films. It may sound absurd, but they are there.

For example, the Ark. Why were there no snakes on or around it? Why didn't Indy need torches when he got close to it? In fact, he throws his torch away. It's never explained . . . except in the script. In the script the Ark radiates an energy that drives the snakes away (the same as the crystal skull does to the ants). Yet in Raiders, this subtle detail is never mentioned or alluded to at all. it's left as a very subtle (but very important) story element.

So, the Feds being Reds could very well have been the case.

Click to expand...

OFF-TOPIC: We saw the rat (in reality deaf) acting strangely in the presence of the Ark, in the hold of Katanga's ship.

But this is all fuel for my unpopular ret-con theory that the IDBs were behind all or some of the artifacts and oddities, all the way back to the Chachapoyan light trap. The only downside is that is locks everything up in Indy's world, and closes the doors on possibility, rather than opening new ones.

STILL OFF-TOPIC: While there are some subtle moments in the movies, I can't see the Feds as Reds. It would make more sense if they were part of the official conspiracy and bureaucracy, as a continuation of the theme of the bureaucrat and the warehouse as they appeared at the end of ROTLA. This is the world that conspires against freedom, and in KOTCS Indy's freedom is also being taken away by the Russians and the Skull.

In a sense 1957 for Indy is the closing down of opportunity, and of the pulp hey day of the 1930s.

ON-TOPIC: The closing down of the world would also be expressed by the US covering up of the incident at Area 51.

Whereas Indy faced a mysterious world in the 1930s, he is now facing a world whose mysteries are already known to some of those in power. It leaves him less pro-active, and more re-active, and alters the tone of this film from the perspective of ROTLA and TLC.

Matt deMille said:

Actually, there ARE subtle layers in both the Indy and Star Wars films. It may sound absurd, but they are there.

For example, the Ark. Why were there no snakes on or around it? Why didn't Indy need torches when he got close to it? In fact, he throws his torch away. It's never explained . . . except in the script. In the script the Ark radiates an energy that drives the snakes away (the same as the crystal skull does to the ants). Yet in Raiders, this subtle detail is never mentioned or alluded to at all. it's left as a very subtle (but very important) story element.

So, the Feds being Reds could very well have been the case.

Click to expand...

Well.....but that's not a buried story point. That's just a nice bit of extra window dressing, really.

Not the same as if there was a secret meaning to the motivations of one of the characters and a hidden conspiracy we were meant to suss out on the basis of a few fleeing glimpses of tertiary characters in one frantic action scene.

In terms of plot and story - nothing hidden, nothing obscured, nothing we're not meant to understand or are supposed to puzzle out on our own.

Sure, there are probably subtleties related to character and theme, but they're not Chris Nolan movies with hidden clues, double meanings and multiple interpretations.

Lance Quazar said:

Well.....but that's not a buried story point. That's just a nice bit of extra window dressing, really.

Not the same as if there was a secret meaning to the motivations of one of the characters and a hidden conspiracy we were meant to suss out on the basis of a few fleeing glimpses of tertiary characters in one frantic action scene.

In terms of plot and story - nothing hidden, nothing obscured, nothing we're not meant to understand or are supposed to puzzle out on our own.

Sure, there are probably subtleties related to character and theme, but they're not Chris Nolan movies with hidden clues, double meanings and multiple interpretations.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I beg to differ, Lance. We're talking today's Spielberg and Lucas. They're not exactly making masterpieces anymore. As much as I liked Kingdom, even I have to admit there's big holes in it, partially from script, partially from editing, almost on par with the Star Wars prequels. The question is, really, were these guys intended to be Reds, or does the final cut of the movie make it what it is, regardless of creator's intent?

If it's the former, then the screenplay is all that matters, and in various drafts, these guys were indeed Reds. Other drafts are silent on their alliance, so one could presume they're the Feds they claimed, I suppose.

If it's the latter, I still want to know why they left when the police sirens are heard.

But this is getting off topic. The real question is about the Area 51 incident creating war, and to that I say "no". Further proof of that is that these two FBI guys, when interrogating Indy, didn't seem to have the full picture. They were probably lied to like Indy and the rest of the world was. They didn't even know what was stolen, so their assessment of the gravity of the Soviet infiltration was limited.

The larger issue, though, is of course if the military itself would take a Soviet raid as cause for war. Back to what I just said, that they'd cover-up the incident even to the Feds sure proves they aren't going to go telling the world about it, and you can't go to war without telling the public why. Hmm, maybe they could make up a reason (like weapons of mass destruction), thus going to war and keeping Area 51 secret.

But I just don't think the government cares enough about its people. Some people care, yes. But the government, and especially the military, is a large, unwieldy engine. There's too much compartmentalization and red tape for there to be genuine concern about individuals. They get lost as cogs in the machine. Unfortunately, that's the reality of it.

Whew! That went a lot longer than I expected.

Uhm... I have dome some academic research on the Cold War (and published something about it here and there), and I believe that no, an act like that wouldn't had triggered anything more than a diplomatic crisis. Anything less than a nuclear attack on American soil (effective or ineffective) couldn't have started a nuclear retaliation, it was the foundation of the Cold War policy between USA and URSS. As someone already mentioned, having Soviet ships filling Cuba with warheads with plans to point them directly to the USA wasn't quite an act of mere sabre-rattling, and it didn't lead to catrastrophy. Should something like the opening of KOTCS have happened, the USA government would have covered it in no time as they were looking at avoiding the use on nuclear weapons in the first place.

(I don't know if I used the correct verbs, if I'm mistaken please correct me so that I can learn )

Attila the Professor said:

But since we know this is world where the Germans can have a huge dig going on in the middle of British-occupied Egypt, we can expect some sort of gaps in real-world logic.

Click to expand...

Pretty much how I feel.

Obviously the Russians simply invaded a base very very few people(even very few government officials) knew about. It wasn't a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, and considering this was at a time where government hid a lot of stuff from the public to keep them from being paranoid, it makes sense to assume this event existed for the sake of an Indiana Jones adventure.

To ask that these films to represent history is asking too much imo. Frankly, I'm just glad that the soviets were bad guys, considering too many Hollywood movies try to convince us that the soviet union was not that bad and that we should give communism a chance and all that BS.

Matt deMille said:

The real question is about the Area 51 incident creating war, and to that I say "no". Further proof of that is that these two FBI guys, when interrogating Indy, didn't seem to have the full picture. They were probably lied to like Indy and the rest of the world was. They didn't even know what was stolen, so their assessment of the gravity of the Soviet infiltration was limited.

Click to expand...

That's not "further proof", you're still talking about the movie. I'm talking about the real world implications.

I'm not necessarily saying there would have been a nuclear retaliation - that would have been a rather extreme response and it's hard to imagine that happening. It certainly wouldn't have been our first response (though escalation could theoretically have happened.)

What I'm saying is that it wouldn't have been quietly "covered up" and considered "just another day in the Cold War", as many here are suggesting.

The Cold War was fought with spies and diplomacy and economics and via third parties. That's why it was "cold". Once you start literally invading other countries and killing SOLDIERS, that's when you change the game.

At the very least, it would have created a diplomatic incident that would have made the Cuban Missile Crisis look like a cocktail party in comparison.

Lance Quazar said:

That's not "further proof", you're still talking about the movie. I'm talking about the real world implications.

I'm not necessarily saying there would have been a nuclear retaliation - that would have been a rather extreme response and it's hard to imagine that happening. It certainly wouldn't have been our first response (though escalation could theoretically have happened.)

What I'm saying is that it wouldn't have been quietly "covered up" and considered "just another day in the Cold War", as many here are suggesting.

The Cold War was fought with spies and diplomacy and economics and via third parties. That's why it was "cold". Once you start literally invading other countries and killing SOLDIERS, that's when you change the game.

At the very least, it would have created a diplomatic incident that would have made the Cuban Missile Crisis look like a cocktail party in comparison.

Click to expand...

I agree . . . were it a normal military base. But Area 51 is different. It's part of the "black world". The military, while pissed, would not be able to do anything because response to an invasion on the base would be an admission of the existence of the base.