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

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
I was thinking about this the other day.

I really love the opening at Area 51 with the warehouse and such, and I got to asking myself; if the Soviets had broken into a top secret U.S. installation, murdered quite a few American soldiers, and stole something from the Govt., does anyone think that this might've kicked the Cold War from just being a war of words to an actual 'War'?

I mean it isn't a flaw of the film or anything, but I do think the U.S. Govt. would have something to say to Russia about this. Mainly with bombs.

So, am I wrong? Any opinions?


(Sorry if this has been posted before!:eek: )
 

Montana Smith

Active member
The Cuban missile crisis was as close as the Cold War came to getting really hot.

If the Hangar 51 incident was for real, the USSR would probably have denied all knowledge, then go on to blame it on a rogue faction, apologise profusely and offer some US prisoners in recompense.

For the sake of peace and to cover their embarrassment at this breach of security, the US would probably hush it up.
 

Wilhelm

Member
The opening reminds me of the Fort Knox Raid in "Goldfinger" (1964) where a convoy of military soldiers attacks US soldiers and try to detonate a nuclear bomb inside the gold depository. In that case the bad guys were Red China communists.

I think in the case of KOTCS the US Government tried to hide the incident like Roswell, maybe they also made secret operations in Russia.
 

tambourineman

New member
Well the US and Britain were certainly carrying out covert paramilitary operations within the USSR during the cold war so we'd probably be a bit naive to think the Russians werent doing the same.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
tambourineman said:
Well the US and Britain were certainly carrying out covert paramilitary operations within the USSR during the cold war so we'd probably be a bit naive to think the Russians werent doing the same.

I know but the murder of many U.S. soldiers wouldn't **** of the U.S. Govt. to the point of considering war?

I mean paramilitary operations is one thing, but killing soldiers is another.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Sure there were plenty of Cold War shennenegins on both sides.

But having actual Russian troops disguised as American troops, invading an American base and slaughtering American soldiers on American soil?

If that's not an act of war, I don't know what is.

Just reason number #47291 why KotCS is stupid.

If nothing else, Indy should have been pretty friggin' pissed off about it through the whole damn movie instead of lamely complying with Spalko and becoming her de facto partner by the end of the film.

A deeply moronic lapse in logic.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Lance Quazar said:
Just reason number #47291 why KotCS is stupid.

crying-baby-giant-eyes1.jpg
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
I <I>love</I> when people mistake funny pictures for discourse.

I mean, Lance is right, it doesn't make much sense. 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. I suppose the reasonable fan-explanation is the one proffered by Montana, though. (Also, acknowledging the incident would necessitate acknowledging or covering up why they were at a mysterious military installation in the Nevada desert, a military installation the government wouldn't want attention drawn to.)
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Lance Quazar said:
Sure there were plenty of Cold War shennenegins on both sides.

But having actual Russian troops disguised as American troops, invading an American base and slaughtering American soldiers on American soil?

If that's not an act of war, I don't know what is.

Just reason number #47291 why KotCS is stupid.

If nothing else, Indy should have been pretty friggin' pissed off about it through the whole damn movie instead of lamely complying with Spalko and becoming her de facto partner by the end of the film.

A deeply moronic lapse in logic.

I agree with the act of war part, for sure.

And yeah I know! Indy (with an ex girlfriend, her son and surrogate father) should've fought back when outnumbered, and out-gunned while surrounded by Soviet soldiers who are half his age! Damn, with those chances, I'd have gave 'em hell!:whip:

In the words of Brad from 'Rocky Horror Picture Show'; "We'll play along for now, Janet. Then break out the aces when the time is right!"

That's what Indy does. And he had no aces to use at the time.
 
Last edited:

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
I <I>love</I> when people mistake funny pictures for discourse.

I mean, Lance is right, it doesn't make much sense.

Hey, sometimes they speak more than words. ;)

I never said he wasn't right. I do agree with everything except the "stupid" remark.

I see comments like those as something that isolates part of an audience, so-to-speak. When someone has a valid criticism, then remarks how the whole picture is "stupid" or just plain sucks, it takes away whatever point they're trying to make. And for someone reading, it can alienate them and make them indifferent to your opinion.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Dr.Jonesy said:
Hey, sometimes they speak more than words. ;)

I never said he wasn't right. I do agree with everything except the "stupid" remark.

I see comments like those as something that isolates part of an audience, so-to-speak. When someone has a valid criticism, then remarks how the whole picture is "stupid" or just plain sucks, it takes away whatever point they're trying to make. And for someone reading, it can alienate them and make them indifferent to your opinion.

And I agree with that entirely, perhaps unsurprisingly. It's just the sort of word choice I always hope goes unnoticed - or better yet, ignored - so things don't escalate.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
And I agree with that entirely, perhaps unsurprisingly. It's just the sort of word choice I always hope goes unnoticed - or better yet, ignored - so things don't escalate.

I just want things to stay on-topic, 100%. Sometimes there's a thread on this forum where it's about a certain detail in the film, then you have someone that comes around and comments about their dislike of the film as a whole when it's completely irrelevant, and then you have people either coming to agree or coming to the film's defense b/c they're all offended. And then the topic gets forgotten about because a flame war eventually escalates that can't be stopped. And that gets old.

If you don't like the film (Or if you do for that matter), take it to the "Like or Dislike" Poll/Thread. Make your vote/opinion known there, and let that be it. This thread is for the specific question I asked, not anything else.

And I shouldn't have drawn attention to that comment specifically, I suppose.
------------------------------------

And the topic at hand, yes I do think Montana has a great point. Along with your point that the Govt. wouldn't want the public to know about a "Top-secret military installation". That seems like a fair assumption.

And I didn't even think about the British occupied Egypt.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Dr.Jonesy said:
And the topic at hand, yes I do think Montana has a great point. Along with your point that the Govt. wouldn't want the public to know about a "Top-secret military installation". That seems like a fair assumption.

And I didn't even think about the British occupied Egypt.

The other point is that the feds who are interrogating Indy don't actually seem all that surprised by the infiltration; they're largely concerned with Jones's apparent aiding-and-abetting of the Soviets. There's a vague sense, in my recollection of the scene, that this sort of thing is seen partially as the cost of doing business, a normal state of affairs. Which is odd, but is also the world the filmmakers have created, where a supernatural event without any evidence can exonerate an apparent Communist sympathizer.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
The other point is that the feds who are interrogating Indy don't actually seem all that surprised by the infiltration; they're largely concerned with Jones's apparent aiding-and-abetting of the Soviets. There's a vague sense, in my recollection of the scene, that this sort of thing is seen partially as the cost of doing business, a normal state of affairs. Which is odd, but is also the world the filmmakers have created, where a supernatural event without any evidence can exonerate an apparent Communist sympathizer.

Or it's possible that they were taking the whole "The Soviets broke into the base" situation with a higher authority and just grilling Indy on what he did and what he knows. The gravity of the whole situation is not something they need to discuss with Indy. They only need to discuss his direct involvement and what "he" did.

Especially when they're saying the "You tell us..." part. It seems they want to know what he knows. And not answer any of his questions. When they find out what he knows, they go from there and keep him in the dark as much as possible.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
I agree with the act of war part, for sure.

And yeah I know! Indy (with an ex girlfriend, her son and surrogate father) should've fought back when outnumbered, and out-gunned while surrounded by Soviet soldiers who are half his age! Damn, with those chances, I'd have gave 'em hell!:whip:

In the words of Brad from 'Rocky Horror Picture Show'; "We'll play along for now, Janet. Then break out the aces when the time is right!"

That's what Indy does. And he had no aces to use at the time.

No wife and kid in the Area 51 scene. And yet Indy actively leads the Russians to their goal. Sure, he exchanges a few words with them and clearly is "biding his time", but he could have done that while actively misleading them instead of ingeniously actually helping them achieve their goal.

There are numerous other occasions, particularly during the very end of the film where Spalko's forces have dwindled to a couple surviving troops, where Indy is far too cooperative with her.

He should be fighting her every step of the way.

I certainly get that he'd want to keep Marion and Mutt out of harm's way, but the movie didn't strike the right balance between his motivations. Indy rolls over far too easily.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
I just want things to stay on-topic, 100%. Sometimes there's a thread on this forum where it's about a certain detail in the film, then you have someone that comes around and comments about their dislike of the film as a whole when it's completely irrelevant, and then you have people either coming to agree or coming to the film's defense b/c they're all offended. And then the topic gets forgotten about because a flame war eventually escalates that can't be stopped. And that gets old.

If you don't like the film (Or if you do for that matter), take it to the "Like or Dislike" Poll/Thread. Make your vote/opinion known there, and let that be it. This thread is for the specific question I asked, not anything else.

And I shouldn't have drawn attention to that comment specifically, I suppose.

My comments were on topic. I answered the question in a thoughtful manner and then pointed out how that flaw in the movie was one of several things that really bothered me.

I don't think I should censor myself about my overall opinion. It's not like it was off-topic or out of left field. If we were discussing the new "Thor" movie and I popped in and said, "KOTCS suks!", then, sure, that would be inflammatory, pointless and irrelevant.

But this is a discussion about the movie itself. If you don't want to talk about opinions, why bother having the conversation at all?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Lance Quazar said:
No wife and kid in the Area 51 scene. And yet Indy actively leads the Russians to their goal. Sure, he exchanges a few words with them and clearly is "biding his time", but he could have done that while actively misleading them instead of ingeniously actually helping them achieve their goal.

There are numerous other occasions, particularly during the very end of the film where Spalko's forces have dwindled to a couple surviving troops, where Indy is far too cooperative with her.

He should be fighting her every step of the way.

I certainly get that he'd want to keep Marion and Mutt out of harm's way, but the movie didn't strike the right balance between his motivations. Indy rolls over far too easily.

At the start the Russians made their intentions clear: they were willing to carry out cold-blooded murder to achieve their objective. Indy is therefore under no illusions about his or Mac's safety at that time. He has no choice but to co-operate until he has a chance to frustrate their objective.

Just before he asks for the shotgun pellets I think he's really excited about discovering the crate, as his natural curiosity is taking over. After all, he's finally inside the very place where the Ark was hidden (not that he would know that, but he does know this is a treasure house of secrets). During his search for the crate he goes beyond politics and nations, as he's in his natural element. No doubt he has plans to discover what's in the crate (as there is question whether he actually saw the Roswell alien bodies, or just wreckage).

Indy's mantra from ROTLA that he "was making it up" as he went along, is likely what takes over inside the warehouse: he will discover what's in the crate, and find a way of preventing the Russians from getting what they want. This is little different from his actions in ROTLA, which inadvertently lead the Germans and Belloq to the Ark.

Later on in the film, there's the issue of the skull having spoken to him, making its return his main objective. The problem with Indy in KOTCS is that he is without free-will for much of it. He only becomes free after returning the skull, and then its a mad dash to escape drowning.

His willing co-operation with Spalko is fuel to fire that there was a secret, unwritten respect for one another - a magnetic attraction... ;)
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
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.

As for other comments like Indy's "helping" the Reds, it makes perfect sense. He knows if he doesn't help them he's a dead man. Besides, what does he care if they get their box? Indy's memory of it was one of betrayal by his own government. He seemed really pissed off about the circumstances of 1947's investigation. Maybe as far as he was concerned the Reds could have it. Obviously if Indy never thought about it further or tried to find it, he wasn't aware of its importance, either.

As for the FBI being unconcerned later on (when interrogating Indy), look closely: The big guy is in one of the cars later that chases Indy and Mutt through Marshall College. In other words, the FBI dude in charge was himself a Soviet spy. So he'd naturally steer the interrogation away from the Soviet infiltration and put the focus (and the blame) on Indy.

Actually, this entire opener was really well done.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Matt deMille said:
As for the FBI being unconcerned later on (when interrogating Indy), look closely: The big guy is in one of the cars later that chases Indy and Mutt through Marshall College. In other words, the FBI dude in charge was himself a Soviet spy. So he'd naturally steer the interrogation away from the Soviet infiltration and put the focus (and the blame) on Indy.

Yeah, can somebody get us some photo confirmation on that? Because I'm not buying it.
 
Top