Hollywood Warfare: How the Pentagon Censors the Movies 

Lmfao me too m8

No one ever said the prediction algorithm they use was smart. It really all depends on the rabbit holes you dig here on the tube.

DJ NitreBlue - I’m diggin’ it and diggin’ you.

You're probably looking for "news". Sorry, that was removed prior to 2010 by at least two decades. But yeah, doesn't stop me for looking for it either, and you betya... same timing as you. Seems as if the more recent things i try to find, the older and older the recommendations get.

queue the Vsauce music

malay regiment? doesnt even describe in the film

They actually did intentionally crash a Blackhawk during the production to try and simulate what it would look like. However, I'm sure your comment was just for the LULZ.

@@JoeSmith-du7kx About half for the lulz, half wondering if they actually did crash any for any reason during the making of the movie.

@@CMDRFandragon They honestly did. When you see Super 64 crash, they did that crash using an actual Blackhawk helicopter frame that they used a crane to swing across the set to simulate a real crash for the audience.

Wait 6 more years, Fox News will be like, "And today we're Remembering a great American, Richard Nixon, who saved us from Hippies, and had the Bold decision to switch sides to North Vietnam in order to finally end the bloody conflict that went on, because pinko lefties like JFK got us involved, uh, socialism, entitlement, 'urban youths' and what not. But we were able to emerge victorious!"

The US only "lost" politically. The war just wasn't worth wasting more money and lives, so they just left.

@@laremare Yes and no. The US army failed to stop the NV incursions/attacks even at the cost of 2.000.000 dead and wounded . Call it agression or unification wars, it was the NVA who managed to beat itself with the stupid Tet offensive. So, North Vietnam couldn't have won, but there would be no peace until the US backed down. So, militarilly: stalemate, politically: NV victory.

@@slenderman27490 Very well concluded.

@@slenderman27490 well technically it was also a US political victory since after unification and the spread of communism in south east asia, Vietnam went quickly cold and hostile with china and remaind neutral as well as other communist countries in the region, on the other had the US had indonesia, australia, thailand, south korea and japan in the east while all China had was north korea who were more costly than they are actually worth... so if anything the chinese were the ones who lost the most

What else do you think they'd be hiding in Area 51? :p

@@willyvereb independence day O.o.... them 3 aliens.

@Gappie Al Kebabi Definition of innocent?

@Gappie Al Kebabi with any conflict there will be a loss of citizens. But in the same light the US also formally charges it's military members for killing civilians. It's not our fault that the mass population "thinks" that an 8 year old with an AK spraying troops or bystanders is a innocent civilian.

grunt Its not our fault America starts needles conflicts over resources and than acts as if they are "protecting freedom" You do realize America funded both isis and the taliban right?

They care about realism, but that's not what they're REALLY most worried about. I can respect that there are some things which might unfairly put the military in a bad light, and there's nothing good about making a movie which portrays the military in a negative way if it's completely wrong about what it draws attention to, but there's plenty of things about the US military and war in general which should be portrayed, ugly details and all. There are plenty of honourable people in the military who don't believe in hiding the ugly things which go on, and who aren't afraid about the public finding out about them. In fact, there's plenty of people in the military who find lots of things to dislike, especially the weird and often really sketchy ways that defense contracts are chosen and funded. Of course, those people never make it to the office at the pentagon which is in charge of convincing movies to re-write their scripts.

@@syncmonism The US Military allows movies that show the ugly side of war and will allow _factual_ and unbiased portrayals of things people in our military did that brought 'great shame and dishonor to themselves, their unit and the United States Military.' The key point here is that the issue has to be presented in what the military feels is a fair and honest manner. Trivia note: the US military does not charge members for 'war crimes.' Instead they charge them as standard felonies, (murder, mistreatment of a prisoner, and article 92 - failure to obey a lawful order or regulation* for example.) * Article 92 is an automatic add on for anything than can be classified as a 'war crime.' Because the person either violated the Rules of Engagement, General Order No 1. or both.

When I came back from Iraq in 2003, I tried (futilely) explaining to people I knew back home that war is not like the movies. I tried to explain to them that not only is it morally ambiguous, where you don't always have a clear sense that you are the 'good guy' in any given situation, but also that the action of 'fighting the enemy' is usually a lot more abstract than it is made out in the movies. Everyone thinks war is like a big paintball or laser-tag match, where the objective is to rack up enemy kills as if they were points, but in reality, it's simply about taking away someone's ability to fight. That goal is accomplished using lot of different methods, many of which most people wouldn't expect. When death is inflicted, it is usually done so collaterally. The US military doesn't use the body count as a metric of progress anymore, the way they did in Vietnam (and there are lots of good reasons for that). But when you go home, everyone you meet asks you how many 'bad guys' you killed, because that's how they think success in war and success as a soldier is measured (because after all, they are thinking in terms of paintball, laser-tag, FPS games and Hollywood movies). So then, you have to disappoint them by telling them the truth, which causes them to unfavorably compare the things that you have to say with the things that they see in media (which they believe are accurate). People say that the military brainwashes you, but after you come home from an actual war, you realize that most civilians are actually a lot more brainwashed about the topic of war than you are. Along with that comes the realization that the force of all of that cultural brainwashing is simply too great to overcome, and so then, you do one of two things; you either stop talking about your experiences -- because you can't get your truth across to anyone anyway -- or you start embellishing your experiences and telling outright lies about them in order to fit everybody's pre-conceived notions of war which they are fed by our culture.

@@archerj.maggott1372 Officially that's correct. But S2 shops kept careful track of this because this was one of the methods used to make an estimate of the number of enemy in a given area. (And there are very good reasons why intelligence product is always referred to as an 'estimate.')

@@colincampbell767 The body count also created perverse incentives, because the goal became to simply produce bodies, and that almost certainly led to the needless creation of new enemies among the populace. Also, when attrition is carried out to its logical conclusion, it is indistinguishable from genocide.

You can really tell. While some parts of the film are really accurate, a lot of it is pure macho fantasy.

All the footage I’ve seen of actual military personnel checking for actually IED’s.....they were in ACU’s with a handheld metal detectors xD No drama lol

@@PatRiot- Never mind that, it was the two EOD guys clearing buildings and taking over sniping roles, going off by themselves into a hostile city and getting into personal vendettas with individual enemies.

it was more because it was insinuating a war crime in a story that was already fictional. that's probably why they didnt like it

Hurt Locker was horribly inaccurate

@@olliephelan You mean the marines?

CGI still looks fake though.

@@mich722 only when you have bad animators. a good animator that has references of light sources can let even a animal look real.

Hahaha. Dead.

1

Right on

I should be studying maths

@@Dourkan my exams are over. Best of luck.

lol, Natives americans are still oppressed ... Funny allways all these people that know about the past, but think it isnt anymore like it... What changed? For them ... Not much still getting killed, police brutality, land robed, MR Obama big mouth signing contract for companies to robbe them ... Do you know about the "fight against poverty"? Peru native american Women getting sterilized by the gouverment against their will that is the progressive of your country, how do you think controlls anything on the american continuent? Torturing, harrassing and extinct natives, is still favourite pass time of the white man...

@@majormononoke8958 damn right

@@majormononoke8958 Hey, uh, dumbass, I think you'll find that nowhere in my comment did I say that they were not oppressed today. Saying they were oppressed in the past does not by default mean I believe that it ONLY existed in the past. Nice try there though, keyboard warrior.

Major Mononoke this comment is the epitome of why people despise social justice warriors, like yourself. The original comment has literally noting to do with “current oppression,” yet you still felt the virtue signaling need to give a (entirely predictable) lecture on how racist America and western culture is. It’s dumb.

@@SuperPwndProductions Thank you for looking at my comment objectively and actually reading what I said. Only in modern America can you "get in trouble" for pointing out the heroic sacrafice of a minority in history.

You didn't get the message right. The films are not financially supported by the DoD. The DoD does not give cash to film makers. The DoD allows off-duty officers to appear as extra on their free time. Or they allow the film makers to rent planes, helicopters, tanks, etc. The film makers still have to pay the rental cost. The You Tube video says that this is cheaper than buying a plan but that fallacious since the public can't buy military equipment such as modern fighter planes, tanks, and what not.So, no, there's no financial support, it's access to military personnel and equipment. The film makers who make films that tarnish the DoD's image don't receive access to military equipment or personnel but, in exchange, they have artistic freedom. Like that one guy in the video said, it's described as an agreement of mutual exploitation, which is a pretty good 3rd party description.

@@c.l.6523 your playing semantics. Loaning someone millions of dollars worth of personnel and equipment is functionally no different than loaning someone millions of dollars worth of cash to pay personnel and rent military equipment. It should be made plainly known that the DoD supported the film.

@@goste4 No I'm not. You don't understand finance. There is a difference between the two scenarios. The first one requires the banker (or whoever the renter obtain the loan from) to take a risk. The second one has the DoD taking the risk, since it offered the renter the loan, which the renter can use to rent equipment and personnel. In the first case, if the movie is poorly received, the bankers lose money. In the second case, If the movie is poorly received, the US Government loses money.

Constantine La are you old enough to be on RU-vid? You telling someone who has a minor in economics that he doesn’t understand finance and then proceed to show that you don’t even understand the point that is being made makes you seem a bit immature? To clarify, if the United States government (or the government of any country for that matter) offers material support to any media operation there is a good case to be made that such support should be fully and clearly disclosed, so as to make clear the role of government sponsored propaganda and make it more difficult to misinform the public. Then same way that advertisers need to label wether an endorsement is paid or not so too should the DoD label its movie affiliations. More clear information about who is supporting the media you put directly into your brain is ALWAYS a good thing, so why are you arguing against this?

It might make people buy more popcorn! "Based on actual events that officially never happened" as long as the Zombies that bought tickets are entertained by the Zombie Apocalypse movie....that's all that matters.

Jeff Liggett yeah, but it makes the propaganda artists look like pussies 😯

@@noobster4779 The best propaganda is that which tells the truth, many people misunderstand the word propaganda and thinks it means misinformation when it actually just means mass information.

Too bad there are 340 million others who need to be aware of it, but this video only has 44k views.

@@1yoan3 meaning is the same

That's the thing about propaganda, most people don't CARE to become aware of much of anything, so it works great 99% of the time. Propaganda would never work in a society of free thinkers.

@Max Schultz Yes, aircrafts and

@Max Schultz Yes. Renting aircrafts and warships måles movie soo darn expensive

Do you have any proof? 6 combat deployments is quite a lot, especially after the Gulf War. If you did, the you deployed more thank Chris Kyle.

Chuck Solutions highly doubt you have had !6! combat deployments and have never ever watched a war movie. But if it makes you feel better...

Yeah fukin right there's nothing soldier's love more than a good war movie

How they almost universally paint the CIA as child stalking baby killers?

@@ProtomanButCallMeBlues and of course the biggest conspiracy of all time: MK Ultra Mind fuckery.

​@@SaRENRampaiger what?

@@sillyfreeman CIA ran a project called MK Ultra, which investigated the potential and feasibility of psychic powers. Needless to say, it was officially a waste of time and money (once it became public and they eventually admitted to it). Equally needless to say, conspiracy theorist don't believe the official story.

@ScreechingBlueHairFeminist Are you really gullible enough to think that any of our intelligence services will have anything to do with Hollywood? And what you described is completely opposite the way real intelligence services operate. Any movie about real life intelligence work would be as interesting as watching paint dry. Another interesting thing about the intelligence services is that they publicize all of their failures - and never, ever talk about their successes. (They want people to regard them as bumbling fools because if they are underestimated then it's easier for them to do their jobs undetected.) And don't expect Hollywood to let the truth get in the way of a good story. BTW the closest Hollywood has ever gotten to accuracy in portraying intelligence services is the movie 'Argo.'

Welcome too our species

id say now a days even with all the movies and games people are generally against war

I agree with you an increasingly civilized society naturally becomes less warlike

You like video games, adventures, stories. War is more like a year long mmo version of russian roulette.

And you cant respawn or choose your weapon.

Right? It would be ridiculous if the Pentagon just kept giving weapons to all moviemakers who wishes to portray the military in a bad light, is like a guy giving photos of his mother to a 12 years old edgelord who plays COD.

8:20

guys the military is not a private organization

@@123Juniiorr I get what you mean but the military is not obliged to make or be part of the movies. Military personnel and ordinance is not for film making but to "protect" the nation. Hollywood gets the military gear and know-how for their movies on a discount because this "helps" the military's cause. If Hollywood wants to make movies with complete freedom, they might as well buy their own tanks, aircrafts and ships at full price, that way they have all the right with what to do with it. In the end, it's just business.

@@madensmith7014what about the constitution?

I was facepalming when he read that. It's like he has selective reading.

@Phi6er how is that unconstitutional? Unconstitutional because the Pentagon can choose who to help? They can say fuck it and help no one.

@Phi6er the Pentagon is not saying you can't make a movie depicting the other side of war, they're just saying they would rather use tax dollars on something else that would benefit them. Nothing says they can't make a movie showing civilians getting murdered, but the Pentagon doesnt have to help them make it.

You're missing out on the jobs that are created from film production as well as boosts to the locale's economy (shelter for crew, food, etc.). Though this only matters if a majority of the film was shot in the US.

@@SatoshiAR I'm pretty sure a lot of the work is outsourced and films are shot in foreign countries (big budget ones)

@@wakaziar9373 you missed the part of the filmmakers having to reimburse the military apparently. being a self loathing lib made you deaf.

8:11

It has to do JUST with freedom of speech: Any taxpayer, so, any artist, should be treated equaly, the military hasn´t the means or even the qualities to judge what is good or bad, aside of that it is completely illegal, but, you know, corruption. Support from the Army makes a commercial out of a film, without any other value, that´s why such films are so bad when filmcritics happen, and the unsupported ones belong partly to some of the best films ever made. "Come and see" is the best antiwar film ever made, maybe the only real antiwar film ever made, the director mede no other films after that (he got sick of directing "come and see", his masterpiece), and the protagonist (13 years old) had white hair after the making was over (in 9 months). The only reason why this cinematographic masterpiece exists, is because the supposedly "masters of censorship", the Soviets, were not "masters of censorship" at all, at least not when compared to the American military... When it comes to time, you notice, the free ones are the actual unfree, and vice versa... And when you notice that you are a complete idiot, you have already murdered 100 innocent civilians in Iraq and Afganistan...

lol klaus, you really think the russians are more humane than US or EU military?! there was once a hostage action several years ago with grozny separatists, the russians didnt mind using a powerful gas to subdue the seperatists while they knew it would also severely affect the hostages ie those lives didnt matter much to them! a lot of hostages died because of the gas

​@@johsenior1535 Where do you get your news from? That were islamic fundamentalists armed by the USA, exactly as the islamic fundamentalists, also armed by the USA, in Afganistan against Soviet Union. Don´t forget, the Soviets had to leave Afganistan without progress, but the reason they went in, was that the islamic fundamentalists have massacred the newly elected (free democratic elections) afgani goverment, and, guess what, it was a socialistic party that has won the elections and got massacred. When the same happened in Chile, the USA also got in and massacred the goverment (Allende), with the help of fascistic paramilitars, who ruled over the country for decates thereafter, with torture and murder... If the CIA has to coop with fascists (bad enough) in order to massacre the new elected goverment (bad enough), for the best of the population, why do they next have to terrorize, torture and kill also normal people??? That defeats the whole purpose, or there was another purpose to beginn with!!! Grozny was the same. Everytime the people try to be free, the USA comes in and kills everybody, cooperating with islamic fundamentalists or fascists. And do you think Southafrica would have got rid of Appartheid and the European racists without the help of the Soviets??? Half of the colonies that gain their independance in Africa got their revolutions financed by the Soviet, that is the main thing of being a Soviet, between 1918-1920 some tens of millions of slaves got their freedom cause of the russian revolution. The Europeans are not worse than the Rusians, they are just too rich to care for slavery und unliberty in this world, cause they have a good time. But I expect nothing from the USA, just a private army that serves the desires of the wealthy.

you dont seem to get the point; the russians didnt care about the lives of the hostages and got a lot of them killed "trying to save them"... so i guess when you say that millions of slaves got their freedom during the russian revolution, you mean all the poor russian citizens that died of starvation or were plainly murdered, dying being freedom?! I see where your view of "humane" comes from... and dont forget the millions that died under stalin's regime as well. i'm not in favor of cia or other government organisation, I know lots of these have done terrible things, but a big difference between russia and the west is that there is always a matter of accountability when the people get word of it, while in russia a commander can pretty much do anything he wants and get a pat on the back. the russian commander that shot down the civilian airplane over ukraine isnt worried...

Sorry, but you either didn't watch the whole video or you didn't understand what was said. The US military does NOT give money to producers or movie companies. What they do is rent assets such as locations, planes etc to production companies for the running cost of them, mainly fuel. In exchange they expect the right to change the script and have the last say. With that they have denied movies critical of the military or intending to show history of the military not from it's sugar side, support. Now what you, and apparently the US military, do not understand is the concept of free speech and equal rights. The military is not a privat organisation but a part of the governmental structure which is paid by all citizens. It can not deny the same option to one party it offers to another because the message is not in it's favour. "Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional." (And moraly more than wrong.) But then again this concept of morality, warcrimes and history seems to be a bit problematic with the good guy blind patriotism of many americans.

@@Toykio They've only done so at the REQUEST of the producers. It's entirely up to the producers whether they want military cooperation in their movies or not. This is not a service that is regularly provided or expected. Therefore, it cannot be construed as discrimination if the military denies to cooperate with the production of a film.

@@Toykio Unlike you, I'm no 1A scholar, but I think it's safe to say that the DOD refusing to rent assets to be used in making films on the grounds they don't want to support the film isn't a free speech issue. You do not have an abstract right to free speech. You have a legal right which is set out in hundreds of years of case law. Refusing to rent military assets at worst has to be narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. In the case of an anti-military film, it probably would be. But the rental scheme probably dodges this problem altogether. By refusing to rent assets to certain films, the military is probably really refusing to grant people a privilege (to have cool shit in their movie), not restricting their rights (to make a movie without government interference).

LEIF TORBJÖRN Yeah , we can't expect anything from a liar government, except you are a liar too. If you don't want to lie for their benefit, not supported by the government is better than got banned from movie industry

If you remove unneccessary detail, it will be like this: The government give a pro-gov film producer a subsidy, or discount, while ignore producer who produce something they don't want people to see. The cheaper, pro-gov film will slowly drown the more expensive anti-gov with the market forces. [The pro-gov message could be anything: from thing we (mostly) all agree like education and equality, to more controversial topic like war.] It's just like how Chinese state media SELF-censor and remove articles or topic that their government doesn't like: while technically it's legal (since a newpaper can choose whatever topic they want, from fashion and sport to politics), most Westerner will consider it to be a bad, authoritarian move.

Midway is a good fallow up. Even has a more interesting love story

I don’t like movies that take a historical tragedy and make it into a love story, because they don’t give a crap about the real historical figures that were in these events, they just care about the love stories and it makes no sense, they do it just to make money

@@brianverbanickjr.5551 what if it's a real love story? I know the one in Pearl Harbor is fake, but what if someone make a love story in wartime that is real?

Pearl Harbor is not the greatest of events to turn into a love story, Pearl Harbor (the movie) is based off of some fictional characters and the people making the movie don’t seem to care about historical accuracy since they were using computers to make it look like modern US destroyers were blowing up in the harbor, and they use a modern carrier for the Doolittle Raid, and fighter pilots cannot just wake up and learn how to fly 2 engine bombers, that just makes no sense, love stories in historical events are horrible, they usually focus on character s that aren’t real, and don’t give a single f-k about the real historical people who died or fought

You mean portrayal?

Its like they think people would pay some one to give them a bad review like for example i had a restaurant and paid someone to eat my food and give it a bad review whilst paying them kinda dumb

Sounded like a bunch of rich guys crying because they didn't get their way.

Hollywood is a business. If it's so much more expensive to make an anti-war movie, then they're gonna be more tempted to mostly go with pro-war movies instead. That's what the guy in the video said he was worried about at the end, that only seeing a very one-sided, highly sanitized depiction of the military in movies has had a dangerous effect on the public psyche, and that it has made the American public more "war hungry".

Runi the problem is deeper. There is an entire argument about honoring the American Flag and if nation America shouldn’t be abolished at once (open borders & stuff) . There is a very anti patriotic wave sweeping among “experts and intellectuals” , including Hollywood. America isn’t perfect but surely among the very best nations ever. Therefore if someone takes the time to dedicate an entire movie to add anti America sentiment, throw Marxist dirt, do it at his / hers own budget. Or just ask to George Soros to do it.

dont forget Apocalypse Now

That's not a solution, that's an opinion

No !! If that happens we will not get good shit propaganda

If you had - then you would understand that Eisenhower said that this military-industrial complex was an absolute necessity. Besides - if this 'military-industrial complex is so powerful - how come the bulk of our major weapons systems were bought in the 1980's? If they were this powerful - wouldn't our military always have the latest version of everything?

@@colincampbell767 Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. He did indeed state that the relationship was inevitable and then explicitly expressed the warning that we must therefore be on guard against the acquisition of undue influence. I don't recall making any kind of value judgment about the realities of the Cold War militarization. To the 2nd half of the response, consider the timeframe of the last major updates to the military, compared to the timing of the collapse of the Soviet Union

@@KaiTakApproach Yes - he warned about undue influence. Now do you think that there ever was 'undue influence' over the democratic process by the 'military-industrial complex?' Besides - I've been in management at a smaller defense contractor. And I can assure you that the relationship between the military and industry is completely dysfunctional. Both sides think that the other has screwed them over in the past and both sides suspect that the other side is trying to screw them over (and both sides are generally correct). I hated my govrenment buyer because she tried to screw us over every chance she got (their performance reviews include how much money they've 'taken back' from their 'industry partners.) I have an abiding hatred of the pentagon procurement bureaucracy. A hatred that began when I wore the uniform and was cemented by my time in industry. Trivia note: My brother in law worked for the Defense Audit Agency. And he told me that the people in that agency were aware that the Pentagon spends $3 in financial audits, controls, etc. to prevent misuse of govrenment funds for every $1 of losses prevented and caught. The whole thing is there because of Congress. Every time there's a scandal a new set of controls, rules and 'improvements' are made to the acquisition process. And the process has been 'improved' to the point where it no longer works. (After 9/11 the military had to get permission from Congress to bypass the Pentagon completely for the purchase of 'we need it yesterday' requirements. (When bullets are flying and it takes six months just for the Pentagon to draft the 'request for proposals' to be sent to companies that may be interested in the work. They absolutely needed to get the hands of the troops who were conducting combat operations - and 'yesterday' is too long for them to wait.)

@@colincampbell767 Fair reply. I think when we talk about undue influence in the context of mass media, especially in response to script editing, we are in line with Eisenhower's concerns. I always took his warning to be aimed primarily in the opposite direction...not at the military but at the industries with an interest in war profiteering...but since he was well aware of Goebbels I think it is fair to expand along the military/state axis of the continuum as well. You bring thoughtful insight in your last response so you have my apologies if I misread your first. I edited my last response in respect.

Very realistic! My father was a Nam Veteran. He only watched it one time cause it brought back too much pain.

Pffttt, peasant. A real man chooses an A-10 fully loaded with maverick missiles

When the constitution was signed, the right to bear arms meant civilians had the same guns as the military. So I should be able to buy and play with a rocket launcher, fully automatic machine gun, etc. The right to bear arms was violated a long time ago.

yea, sure but there's a fair case to be made about requiring a disclaimer. People should know what speech is government sponsored propaganda and what speech isn't imo.

@@goste4 Then well over 90% of the media would have to admit they get their talking points from Russian handlers, who exploited the Mockingbird program that started in the 1950s.

LRRPFco52 yea that’s fine by me. I strongly doubt the percentage of the media getting talking points from Russia is 90%, because believing that would require me to believe my government is so weak and inept as to let a foreign, hostile entity take over its domestic media, but regardless what the percentage is, it should all be disclosed.

@@goste4 The CIA initiated a massive propaganda operation in the 1950s called Mockingbird, designed to fight the Soviets in the information war domestically and abroad. Only problem is that the CIA was filled with 200 double agents from General Reinhardt Gehlen's organization when CIA was formed in 1947. They were recruited by the Soviet NKVD at the end of WWII with the angle of getting revenge against the US for what we did to Germany. These doubles who were part of Mockingbird reported back to the Center, and the KGB Ideological Warfare branch realized they had an unprecedented opportunity in history, which they immediately took advantage of. Instead of the hundreds of editors and owners of US media pumping out pro-American propaganda, they slowly started churning demoralizing stories about the US, culminating in Tet of 1968, where after the US had erased the VC from existence and decimated the NVA, Walter Cronkite announced that we were losing the war. From then-on, most of the "news" would be carefully crafted to paint America in a bad light, questioning our moral standing, undermining defense programs, demoralizing potential recruits and industry professionals, while filling academia with Marxism-Leninism.

@@LRRPFco52 ok if you say so. So it sounds like you're in favor of adding disclaimers to media, so we can expose the Russians, right?

Yes Stone was in vietnam but he lied about some of the events in his movie. Look up, even the guys he served with said he full of it.

@@lovejen01 He didn't lie about some of the events in the movie when it was a "semi-autobiographical" film and not an "autobiographical."If it was an full autobiographical film then I would agree.

@@SpudsMcHaggis that was his claim after when he was being called out by his old unit. Look it up you will find articles about it.

Yeah it's kind of hillarious that soldiers killing their officers was considered "unrealistic" when it was so common it caused huge logistical problems and they had to invent a term for it ("fragging").

No one won the the war of 1812. 2nd I've never heard of Canada probably made up. Third Vietnam won by the US lost by the South we bombed them into submission killed over 2.5 million North Vietnamese only lost about 60,000 US soldiers never lost major battles killed top NVA officers that reported to Ho Chi Minh defended khe sanh with 30,000 Marines against over a million NVA so yeah We won Vietnam. *Edit* Saigon never fell to the NVA untill we left so yeah US-1 NVA-0

@@huntermanning9654 the reason why the US went to war was to achieve goals. 1812 : Aim : The US aimed to Unite Americans and Canadians into the US by force. Result : the Canadians burned down D.C. Vietnam : Aim : To prevent the communists from ruling over Vietnam and protecting the anti communist South. Result : South was defeated and Vietnam became communist.

@@cameronburke8002 in The war of 1812 had America took control of parts of Canada and after Britain's naval blockade failed the British Navy retreated back to parts of Britain and Canada and the us Navy held multiple key points on the waves holding the British off so a treaty was to be signed and settled the border of America and Canada and in return we gave back what we had captured from Canada so yeah US victory. And your contradicted yourself on Vietnam you said south was defeated yes your right but after we left the NVA took control of the South but while we were their we held off all there attacks so yeah while we were their the NVA didn't accomplish they're goal so yeah once again US victory.

@ first up if you would actually read the war of 1812 was never won by anyone but if you put into perspective everything we captured and destroyed points at a us victory also like I said it was Britain and Canada who wanted a treaty signed because we wouldn't give back parts of Canada so that was seen as Britain surrendering as well as Canada but it was ultimately a draw and Canada and the US arranged borders.

@ The Consequences of the War If the causes of the war are obscure, so too are the consequences. The United States has won most of its wars, often emerging with significant concessions from the enemy. But the War of 1812 was different. Far from bringing the enemy to terms, the nation was lucky to escape without making extensive concessions itself. The Treaty of Ghent (which ended the conflict) said nothing about the maritime issues that had caused the war and contained nothing to suggest that America had achieved its aims. Instead, it merely provided for returning to the status quo ante bellum - the state that had existed before the war. The prosecution of the war was marred by considerable bungling and mismanagement. This was partly due to the nature of the republic. The nation was too young and immature - and its government too feeble and inexperienced - to prosecute a major war efficiently. Politics also played a part. Federalists vigorously opposed the conflict, and so too did some Republicans. Even those who supported the war feuded among themselves and never displayed the sort of patriotic enthusiasm that has been so evident in other American wars. The advocates of war appeared to support the conflict more with their heads than their hearts, and more with their hearts than their purses. As a result, efforts to raise men and money lagged far behind need. Despite the bungling and half-hearted support that characterized this conflict, the War of 1812 was not without its stirring moments and splendid victories. American success at the Thames in the Northwest, the victories at Chippewa and Fort Erie on the Niagara front, the rousing defense of Baltimore in the Chesapeake, and the crushing defeat of the British at New Orleans - all these showed that with proper leadership and training American fighting men could hold their own against the well-drilled and battle-hardened regulars of Great Britain. Similarly, the naval victories on the northern lakes and the high seas and the success of privateers around the globe demonstrated that, given the right odds, the nation’s armed ships matched up well against even the vaunted and seemingly invincible Mistress of the Seas. The war also produced its share of heroes-people whose reputations were enhanced by military or government service. The war helped catapult four men into the presidency - Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, James Monroe, and William Henry Harrison - and three men into the vice-presidency - Daniel D. Tompkins, John C. Calhoun, and Richard M. Johnson. The war also gave a significant boost to the political or military careers of other men. Indeed, for many young men on the make, the war offered an excellent launching pad for a career. In some ways, the War of 1812 looked more to the past than to the future. As America's second and last war against Great Britain, it echoed the ideology and issues of the American Revolution. It was the second and last time that America was the underdog in a war and the second and last time that the nation tried to conquer Canada. It was also the last time that Indians played a major role in determining the future of the continent. In this sense, the War of 1812 was the last of the North American colonial wars. The war was unusual in generating such vehement political opposition and nearly unique in ending in a stalemate on the battlefield. Although most Americans pretended they had won the war - even calling it a "Second War of Independence"-they could point to few concrete gains - certainly none in the peace treaty - to sustain this claim. It is this lack of success that may best explain why the war is so little remembered. Americans have characteristically judged their wars on the basis of their success. The best-known wars - the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II - were all clear-cut successes. Although many people remembered the War of 1812 as a success, it was in a very real sense a failure, and perhaps this is why it attracts so little attention today. The obscurity of this war, however, should not blind us to its significance, for it was an important turning point, a great watershed, in the history of the young republic. It concluded almost a quarter of a century of troubled diplomacy and partisan politics and ushered in the Era of Good Feelings. It marked the end of the Federalist party but the vindication of Federalist policies, many of which were adopted by Republicans during or after the war. The war also broke the power of American Indians and reinforced the powerful undercurrent of Anglophobia that had been spawned by the Revolution a generation before. In addition, it promoted national self-confidence and encouraged the heady expansionism that lay at the heart of American foreign policy for the rest of the century. Finally, the war gave the fledgling republic a host of sayings, symbols, and songs that helped Americans define who they were and where their young republic was headed. Although looking to the past, the war was fraught with consequences for the future, and for this reason it is worth studying today. Donald R. Hickey is a professor of history at Wayne State College, Wayne, Nebraska. He is the author of Don't Give Up the Ship: Myths of the War of 1812 and The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict.

No joke. Bunch of cry babies

SmartassX1 Nobody would financially support a movie that portrays thenselves in a bad light.. why would the military have to do it then?

@@Gurfi28 I'm not saying that they have to. I'm saying that it makes sense that they don't and that this is not censorship.

@SkyFoxAira The u.s. military doesn't use conscription, so it is a state-run company. And either way, it does to have a reputation to defend. Look at the u.s. police for comparison. They have a reputation for racial profiling and excessive violence, which directly contributes to higher crime rates and makes people avoid and distrust the police.

SmartassX1 I was agreeing with you. Just stating another point supporting you.

SkyFoxAira well if you want to get into it. The military is a multi billion dollar industry. The war machine is an economy, war is only ever for 2 things: power and money. Usually both, the military is a company just like McDonalds only difference is that it’s run by the govt. and is used for warfare.

It's a bad market incentive. By telling studios/producers that military movies will get subsidized the higher ups are more likely to refuse to make a military movie that isn't pro-military or even pressure directors to change the direction the movie is going in the middle of shoots. Look this shit is no different than the government subsidizing healthcare, housing or tuition. My problem isn't that I think I'm entitled to subsidies. My problem is that those subsidies are bad market incentives and will raise the prices I pay.

Decease = to die Disease = illness

Ok, but would we really want those Hollywood people to have actual military weapons?

@@Pichael91 I don't think self control has anything to do with it? I don't know how to explain it bc it all psychology and dealing with something that's practically designed to make people want to join the military. I say practically bc I don't think that was the directors goal when making the movie but it was the governments when they asked to for certain things to include / excluded. Self control is dealing with temptations. I wasn't tempted to join the military. I was manipulated if anything. They knew what to do that would make young men want to join the military and they did it with precision. So long story made not so short it's has nothing to do with self control. (edit) a great example of this is music! They record companies work hard to make sure the song hits certain notes with a certain beats bc it's proven that a song will be more enjoyable if they do that. It's the same process but with a movie!

Max Rebhorn I mean technically a draw isn’t a win or a defeat, so I guess?

@@koids7316 but America got kicked in the ass white house burned soooo

@@Funcrafter01 I mean I guess I could see that, but then again Battle of New Orleans and the Great Lakes were really successful, and nothing was really gained from either side, so my point stands.

@@koids7316 would you say America won in Korea

@@Funcrafter01 No, stalemate again. Technically its still going due to a truce.

You have freedom of speech. But the military is not required to cater to your freedom of speech.

@RingSight91 bottom line, if there is one group of people, one community I will never feel bad for is Hollywood. They aren't starving out there and they need to pay up if they want to use the taxpayers equipment.

@RingSight91 When has the military prevented Hollywood from making a movie? All the military does is refuse to have anything to do with what they see as anti-military propaganda.

So as a comparison, how would you feel if the next democrat government created a new law which gives free staff, distribution, prime TV time, travel and equipment to all newspapers that write good things about the democrats, and denied those to anyone who says anything negative about them even if it's true? Do you think that it would affect the integrity, quality or content of the media? Do you think that newspapers who write about negative things that democrats have done would feel like the government was making it more difficult for them to show of their flaws, and do you think that those newspapers would feel pressure to stop pointing out said flaws?

@@maybeyourbaby6486 The Democratic Party can do this with assets they own. Trying to pass a law doing this with Federal assets runs them into the conflict of interest laws. Another thing you need to consider is that the moment you make the military provide support to just about anybody with a camera - what happens when this support interferes with a mission?

So you would rather watch a movie with propaganda then a movie base in realism and historical accuracy?

@HangGlideTube But it isn't just two separate business partners though, one has limitations on it that come from the Bill of Rights. While in Iraq, we put some wear and tear on our Bradleys by jumping them. There is a stretch of Highway South and South West of Baghdad. South of the airport, maybe a little South East, the road was blown up and there was (this is 2005 I'm talking about, haven't been back to visit, so not sure if it is still there) a makeshift bridge. It had a bit of a ramp up and down to it, so I would get some speed going and jump it as best a 30+ ton vehicle could. The mechanics were looking at the shocks and said, "You were jumping it weren't you ... you know you're the one replacing those, right?" A small price to pay to break up the monotony of driving up and down the same road 12-24 hours a day.

Two films that showed the horrors of warfare influenced you to enlist? Are you sick?

Same tho 12bravo they played full metal jacket for us on labor day

"War is progress" . For the nazis that "progress" was the Holocaust...

AlexSaysHi2013 You've never read the art of war have you?

@@noobster4779 That "progress" lead to the development of jets, modern rocketry, better tank designs, etc. You can't just say it was all about the holocaust lul

@@pwnzus And it lead to the deaths of 70+ million people in Europe and Asia and the opression of eastern Europeans under Nazis and later the Soviet Union. But hey, atleast we got a new tank design!

@@jameschristophercirujano6650 No, they did it because the nazis and fascists are mentally ill sub humans who deserve to be killed. They weren't loosing the war in 1941, and yet they were purging thousands of Poles, Yugoslavians and later Russians for the sake of their Lebensraum and in accordance with ''General Plan Ost''. Good thing they were absolutely crushed by the the red army later on. So much for the superior germany army lmao.

There is no such “freedom of expression” in ANY amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances First admendmemt The freedom of speach falls under expression. Which is why it ok to express ties with rival nations, so long as your not expressing hate or harming any other group with your freedoms. And they are not forcing the government to do anything. As stated in the video they are both in collaboration amongst each other; and at any point if the government wanted to back out they could indeed do so, as nothing is preventing them from doing so. However, surpressing the material that the creater makes is in violation of the first admendmemt: freedom of speech/expression. So while not specifically stated, it is still stated within the 1st admendmemt.

I would love to debate this with any of you, so long as you do so in a respectful and mature manner

@@13ghettoDolphins101 There is, its implied, and that has been determined by the USSC as a basic right. The issue here is that you would have to be high as a kite to think that the govt refusing to give you money and resources to fund your own art project qualifies as censorship. Thats total rubbish.

@@arkamun1659 Yeah you are absolutely right. This has been well established in US law.

Because its not their stuff, its the taxpayers'

The issue is that the government shouldn't be using taxpayer money to sell a message. On the one hand that sounds right to me. On the other hand, what do you call an advertisement for joining the military? So the government can't have advertisements?

@@All-shall-say-Jesus-is-Lord yeah that's a good point you bring up. The govt. has advertisements for everything so I don't think that aspect is too much of an issue, but maybe there should be a disclaimer in all of the movies that they aid in? And as far as using taxpayer money, they're renting out spaces and vehicles that already exist for actual military purposes + charge the film studios for gas money. So at least it isn't draining a ton of taxpayer money (as far as I'm concerned, it could be more than I imagine).

and I didn't mention that the entire pentagon film division is of course using taxpayer money to run

@@jakeccr yeah that seems reasonable. A disclaimer so big nobody could miss it, so that everyone knows which movies are for sure biased.

MrShtbrick Great anecdote was that Tony Scott personally wrote a $10,000 check while onboard the Big E to keep it sailing in 1 direction for an extra 30 minutes. The light was “perfect” and he wanted to get his shot.

Lol

CS:GO : hold my beer.

In that case - which Army is the 'best in the world?' And what are your criteria?

It is tho. I’m not sure what military you think is better than the US but it certainly isn’t.

There's much I don't like about the American military, but to deny that they could easily sweep aside any other military force in the world in conventional warfare is just speaking nonsense. Nobody, including Russia and China, is even close in terms of power.

Goat Master realistic war movies are unintentionally anti war. War sucks

@@Scott-yf1zn Yes, they are often that. But if they intentionally ignore cases of heroism in war just to show an anti-war view, it's not the full thing. What i mean is that there is both heroism and horror - show both, or show neither and be either a bad action move or a bad hippie movie.

Goat Master what’s the point, the majority of war is boredom, not heroism, with spurts of terror thrown in here and there.

everyone? I think only 13 died? and no it wasn't a loss they completed the target mission, but public outcry over 13 dead americans made them pull out shortly after... also they killed something like 500 people during said mission

fludblud dude the objective was not to go in and start shooting people. They were protecting a warlord who was killing and starving thousands of people. This was not an attack on the city. Literally if their one helicopter doesn’t get shot down then no one dies and it’s not a disaster. But you can’t plan for everything.

@@natebryars732 And thats the fundamental flaw of American interventionism, the self belief in being the 'good guys' and overestimation of capabilities leads to utterly stupid mission ideas that never needed to happen. Before the operation the UN mission had broad support amongst the Somali population with the warlords being increasingly marginalised. Instead the very moment American troops dropped into Mogadishu unannounced and started shooting, the Somalis rallied around to defend their city like any normal patriot should and the UN was forced to withdraw within a year. You wouldnt like it if Chinese troops landed in your city without permission to arrest your mayor so why should they? This is the exact same thing that happened with the Iraq War and it cost trillions and thousands of American lives.

fludblud dude I don’t live in a third world country and am not being starved into submission. The UN was out there helping these people. The US soldiers wouldn’t have fired a shot if they weren’t fired upon. They didn’t “attack” the city. They went into the city because if they just packed it up and left then the whole country would just go back to how it was before. If the US was tearing itself apart and the Chinese came into bring relief supplies and went to kill those responsible for starving me, you best believe I’m on their side.

@@natebryars732 ...except Somalia was actually begining to restabilise at that point despite being fractured. It just so happened that Farah Adid (who the US supported previously) decided he'd rather not be a US puppet ruler, and just like every other allied dictator who decided to not play ball (including the previous ruler of Somalia) the US decided to "intervene".