Dr.Strangelove - historical aspects and discussion

These messages, maybe. (Seriously, tho., don't worry - I've gone looking for my specs and found them on my face. We're all getting older.)
images.jpg
 
Last edited:
Rhinocrates said:
These messages, maybe. (Seriously, tho., their existence is the message.)
View attachment 701481
Click to expand...
I have to admit that ever since I watched the movie for the first time I wondered about the kludgy aerodynamics of the bombs themselves and even much more so of anybody riding them (as well as any associated asphyxia issues) ... and also, who was that mysterious "Dear John" character supposed to be? An inquiring German mind wants to know.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
I have to admit that even when I watched the movie for the first time I wondered about the aerodynamics of the bombs themselves as well as of anybody riding them... and also, who was that John???
Click to expand...

It's a reference to the infamous "Dear John"-type letters that a GI would receive during WW2 from a former lover back home, announcing the end of a relationship.

https://time.com/6137746/dear-john-letters-world-war-ii/
 
Kiltonge said:
martinbayer said:
I have to admit that even when I watched the movie for the first time I wondered about the aerodynamics of the bombs themselves as well as of anybody riding them... and also, who was that John???
Click to expand...

It's a reference to the infamous "Dear John"-type letters that a GI would receive during WW2 from a former lover back home, announcing the end of a relationship.

https://time.com/6137746/dear-john-letters-world-war-ii/
Click to expand...
Thank you honestly for the cultural background, but I *still* can't make logical sense of the concrete context of the particular situation - why would any male USAF active service member spray an (anticipated or even received?) breakup message from their former female partner on a strategic weapon system? But perhaps I'm being too Sheldon here (and this is an absolutely honest question - imagine Mr. Spock with a quizzical look on his face here...)? In summary, I just don't get it, as is the case with ever more things in our current universe...
 
Last edited:
jeffb said:
Stick with it MartinBayer, you'll get it (you could as easily ask who the "Hi there" is directed to).
Meanwhile the prize goes to Slim Pickens:
View: https://youtu.be/nRY5-6Fikz0
Click to expand...
Actually, as a matter of fact, I would indeed also ask exactly who the "Hi there" graffiti is directed to - as a child growing up in Germany in the Sixties, I am utterly lacking any cultural context or reference frame for that message as well - which gender is it aimed at, if any?
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Actually, as a matter of fact, I would indeed also ask exactly who the "Hi there" graffiti is directed to - as a child growing up in Germany in the Sixties, I am utterly lacking any cultural context or reference frame for that message as well - which gender is it aimed at, if any?
Click to expand...
Either.

It's meant as a sort of self contradictory play on words/joke. Like saying, "Hello! And goodbye!", or "Welcome! We are here to destroy you!"

That sort of thing.
 
martinbayer said:
jeffb said:
Stick with it MartinBayer, you'll get it (you could as easily ask who the "Hi there" is directed to).
Meanwhile the prize goes to Slim Pickens:
View: https://youtu.be/nRY5-6Fikz0
Click to expand...
Actually, as a matter of fact, I would indeed also ask exactly who the "Hi there" graffiti is directed to - as a child growing up in Germany in the Sixties, I am utterly lacking any cultural context or reference frame for that message as well - which gender is it aimed at, if any?
Click to expand...

During the Second World War, German bomb handlers would paint messages on some bombs, like 'Happy Easter' or "For Stalin.' Unlike their crass American counterparts who painted 'pin-ups' on the noses on some of their bombers (yes, some; it was not universal), they would paint a bomb going through Chamberlain's umbrella. This was to convey an attitude toward the enemy.
 
edwest4 said:
During the Second World War, German bomb handlers would paint messages on some bombs, like 'Happy Easter' or "For Stalin.' Unlike their crass American counterparts who painted 'pin-ups' on the noses on some of their bombers (yes, some; it was not universal), they would paint a bomb going through Chamberlain's umbrella. This was to convey an attitude toward the enemy.
Click to expand...

"Crass?" Hmmm...

Worldview 1: A bomb dropping on an enemy sez "this is what we're fighting against."
Worldview 2: A hot chick sez "this is what we're fighting *for.*"

Both are valid, but I'd argue the former to be more crass.
 
martinbayer said:
the kludgy aerodynamics of the bombs themselves and even much more so of anybody riding them (as well as any associated asphyxia issues)
Click to expand...
While IRL I doubt Major Kong would have even been able to hold on to the bomb, I think the film-makers did well to play it for humour. As for asphyxia, they were coming in under the radar sufficiently low that breathing wouldn't be a problem for him. World War 1 pilots probably flew and fought without oxygen at higher altitudes than that B-52 was when they dropped.

I also suspect that the bombs' design is not reflective of reality. If they are, a nuclear bomb designed for internal carriage on a strategic bomber like the B-52 can afford to be high-drag; its business is to slow down as soon as it's released and start making for the ground, giving the launch aircraft time to put distance between; not to retain speed and continue keeping pace with the aircraft that dropped it. Nukes designed for external carriage under tactical bombers are usually dropped in parachute-retarded laydowns or lob-toss manouevres designed to throw the bomb toward the target while the aircraft exits in a different direction.
 
Orionblamblam said:
edwest4 said:
During the Second World War, German bomb handlers would paint messages on some bombs, like 'Happy Easter' or "For Stalin.' Unlike their crass American counterparts who painted 'pin-ups' on the noses on some of their bombers (yes, some; it was not universal), they would paint a bomb going through Chamberlain's umbrella. This was to convey an attitude toward the enemy.
Click to expand...

"Crass?" Hmmm...

Worldview 1: A bomb dropping on an enemy sez "this is what we're fighting against."
Worldview 2: A hot chick sez "this is what we're fighting *for.*"

Both are valid, but I'd argue the former to be more crass.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I see. We wuz fighten' so dat da Nazis wouldn't overrun England and Russia, as once said by Popeye the Sailor.

The British braving arctic waters to send supplies to Stalin. Americans not getting even a 'thank you' from the Russians when they would pick up their Lend-Lease aircraft.
 
pathology_doc said:
martinbayer said:
the kludgy aerodynamics of the bombs themselves and even much more so of anybody riding them (as well as any associated asphyxia issues)
Click to expand...
While IRL I doubt Major Kong would have even been able to hold on to the bomb, I think the film-makers did well to play it for humour. As for asphyxia, they were coming in under the radar sufficiently low that breathing wouldn't be a problem for him. World War 1 pilots probably flew and fought without oxygen at higher altitudes than that B-52 was when they dropped.

I also suspect that the bombs' design is not reflective of reality. If they are, a nuclear bomb designed for internal carriage on a strategic bomber like the B-52 can afford to be high-drag; its business is to slow down as soon as it's released and start making for the ground, giving the launch aircraft time to put distance between; not to retain speed and continue keeping pace with the aircraft that dropped it. Nukes designed for external carriage under tactical bombers are usually dropped in parachute-retarded laydowns or lob-toss manouevres designed to throw the bomb toward the target while the aircraft exits in a different direction.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were coming in under the radar and on a path to avoid antiaircraft defenses. The Mark 5 bomb was available, along with the Mark 6.

Mark 5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_5_nuclear_bomb
Mark 6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_6_nuclear_bomb
It is a complete mystery to me as to what kind of bomb the smaller fighter-bombers were carrying. These were held in a "holster" configuration mid-fuselage. The top of the holster was over the warhead portion of the bomb. As it approached the target, the pilot would enter a loop/circular maneuver where the bomb was released over the target and the plane would fly off.
 
The US gave zero damns about Nazis whacking Commies. We gave maybe a third of a damn about the Brits. But Betty Grable? Yeah, lotsa damns given there. Helping the Sovs and the Brits was just a means to an end.
 
Orionblamblam said:
The US gave zero damns about Nazis whacking Commies. We gave maybe a third of a damn about the Brits. But Betty Grable? Yeah, lotsa damns given there. Helping the Sovs and the Brits was just a means to an end.
Click to expand...


I see. A newspaper headline that never appeared. (AP) 6 June 1945. "Victory in Europe was All About saving Betty Grable."
 
Orionblamblam said:
There's reasons given, then there's the real reasons. The think your average GI gave a rats ass about saving Stalin?
Click to expand...

Near the end of War I, the Doughboys are sent in to make sure certain countries won, and Germany lost. In June of 1944, the G.I.s are sent in.
 
As a German, I am thankful for the US intervention that helped free us from fascism.
 
I am thankful that my parents ended up in the American Zone of occupation, after years as forced laborers.
 
Although made about the US Dr Strangelove was a very British comedy film in the spirit of the BBC TV show "That was the week that was.." and the magazine "Private Eye".. Satyr humour in the film is much easier for a British viewer than our friends abroad.

The messages on the bombs are British takes on US slang (Dear John letters led to many Brit women going Stateside and Hi there had come into British use from all our US friends).

Even the design of the bombs is a very Gerry Amderson home made look from an old battery with balsa wood fins!

Perhaps the most British aspect of the film is the dark haired actress playing the Playmate of the Month.. Look at a picture of Christine Keeler who brought down the Macmillan government and you ll see a distinct likeness. A US General's babe would have had peroxide blonde hair!

The joke about fluoride in the water is another clue. This issue was big in Britain in the early 60s.

Maybe Hollywood should get its own back with a film about a deranged British Prime Minister (far fetched! I know) nuking Moscow.
 
It's a satirical comedy made with no cooperation from the USAF or Boeing or whoever, so we need to cut some slack. Kubrick being a super-nerd managed to get together a B-52 cockpit that actually looked realistic.

Perhaps the saving grace of the film was Peter Seller's falling off the B-52 set and breaking bones and being unable to play the role of Major Kong. I don't think that he could have done it as well as Slim Pickens. Saying that Sterling Hayden did well to keep it together with Seller's ad libbing things like "the string has gone in my leg..."
 
uk 75 said:
Although made about the US Dr Strangelove was a very British comedy film in the spirit of the BBC TV show "That was the week that was.." and the magazine "Private Eye".. Satyr humour in the film is much easier for a British viewer than our friends abroad.

The messages on the bombs are British takes on US slang (Dear John letters led to many Brit women going Stateside and Hi there had come into British use from all our US friends).

Even the design of the bombs is a very Gerry Amderson home made look from an old battery with balsa wood fins!

Perhaps the most British aspect of the film is the dark haired actress playing the Playmate of the Month.. Look at a picture of Christine Keeler who brought down the Macmillan government and you ll see a distinct likeness. A US General's babe would have had peroxide blonde hair!

The joke about fluoride in the water is another clue. This issue was big in Britain in the early 60s.

Maybe Hollywood should get its own back with a film about a deranged British Prime Minister (far fetched! I know) nuking Moscow.
Click to expand...

The film was about British things? Nonsense! On this side of the pond, I knew my odds of survival were zero when I was a boy. In the early 1960s, I saw a B-52 flying high overhead. In the 1980s, I was able to see a targets list. My city was 4 or 5 depending. A few more ICBMs were on the list for other targets west and north of where I was. One bomb could have wiped out London. The Yanks had your back, just like WW 2. Britain was a staging area for SAC bombers and support equipment.

Fluoride was part of nuclear weapons production. We were told it was being put in our water to prevent cavities!

The design of the bomb in the movie was a very credible representation of the large size of the bombs then available. If you wanted to wipe out a deeply buried, hardened Russian installation, you needed something that big.

A "Dear John" letter was a very American thing. It could range from "I'm tired of waiting, good bye" to "I've found someone else, good bye." That's just the way things are.

Dark haired women were always far more common than bleached blondes or platinum blondes.
 
Hood said:
It's a satirical comedy made with no cooperation from the USAF or Boeing or whoever, so we need to cut some slack. Kubrick being a super-nerd managed to get together a B-52 cockpit that actually looked realistic.

Perhaps the saving grace of the film was Peter Seller's falling off the B-52 set and breaking bones and being unable to play the role of Major Kong. I don't think that he could have done it as well as Slim Pickens. Saying that Sterling Hayden did well to keep it together with Seller's ad libbing things like "the string has gone in my leg..."
Click to expand...

Peter Sellers was great. "Gentlemen, please! No fighting! This is the War Room!"
 
Now let us also discuss the contemporary, very bleak, and not at all comedic "Fail Safe".
If you can find a copy of the novel, it's somewhat different from the film but no less enlightening and horrifying.

The one thing the two have in common is that unknown to the authors, the basic premise was flawed (Source: Men Who Play God: The Story of the Hydrogen Bomb by Norman Moss). Everything that flows from it, however, was very well handled.
 
The *size* of the bomb is about right, but the shape is wholly fantastical. That annular inlet is just kinda weird.
 

Attachments

  • Dr._Strangelove_-_Riding_the_Bomb.png
    Dr._Strangelove_-_Riding_the_Bomb.png
    174.7 KB · Views: 13
  • MV5BYTk5MzUxN2UtNTI1Ny00ZjM2LTgyOWYtMmUxOTFlZGVlOTk1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUxMjc1OTM@._V1_.jpg
    MV5BYTk5MzUxN2UtNTI1Ny00ZjM2LTgyOWYtMmUxOTFlZGVlOTk1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUxMjc1OTM@._V1_.jpg
    203.9 KB · Views: 14
  • MV5BMDkxYWExYzQtNzk3ZC00NWQ4LWIzMjMtMWQzZjhhMjVmMDVhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjI0Mjg2NzE@._V1_.jpg
    MV5BMDkxYWExYzQtNzk3ZC00NWQ4LWIzMjMtMWQzZjhhMjVmMDVhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjI0Mjg2NzE@._V1_.jpg
    74.2 KB · Views: 13
  • MV5BOWFiMDM4NWYtZTQwZS00MGUzLThmMDUtMzhkOWM1YWMxMmI5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUxMjc1OTM@._V1_.jpg
    MV5BOWFiMDM4NWYtZTQwZS00MGUzLThmMDUtMzhkOWM1YWMxMmI5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUxMjc1OTM@._V1_.jpg
    283.6 KB · Views: 13
  • MV5BZjdmNDRjZjItNmI0NC00NTc1LWI5MWUtMmRhYTA3NTU3MGY2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjI0Mjg2NzE@._V1_.jpg
    MV5BZjdmNDRjZjItNmI0NC00NTc1LWI5MWUtMmRhYTA3NTU3MGY2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjI0Mjg2NzE@._V1_.jpg
    455.3 KB · Views: 11
pathology_doc said:
Now let us also discuss the contemporary, very bleak, and not at all comedic "Fail Safe".
If you can find a copy of the novel, it's somewhat different from the film but no less enlightening and horrifying.

The one thing the two have in common is that unknown to the authors, the basic premise was flawed (Source: Men Who Play God: The Story of the Hydrogen Bomb by Norman Moss). Everything that flows from it, however, was very well handled.
Click to expand...

I saw it and it reflected U.S. planning at the time. Unknown to movie audiences, there were other measures that were undoubtedly in place to prevent such a scenario. Trust me, both I and the people I knew had a great time in the 1960s. We knew this was just a movie, not real life.

Not long ago, I saw an interview with the former head of Russian Space Forces. He related that in the late 1960s, he received an alert of an attack by the United States. As he looked into it, it appeared we had launched all missiles. He had 15 minutes to decide what to do. He dispatched two high-speed aircraft to certain coordinates which would show a launch of this magnitude. The pilots saw nothing. Russian agents in the U.S. also saw nothing. He announced an end to the alert. Later, it was discovered that Russian satellites designed to detect a launch had been triggered by the sun reflecting off the tops of clouds at a certain altitude.
 
edwest4. Got the Playboy Playmate one wrong. Checked on Google images and blondes do not dominate.
We got the same Fluoride story both sides of the pond.
The messages on the bombs still puzzle me as I am not sure SAC in 1963/4 would have allowed them on H bombs.
We definitely would have shared the same fate. Upper Heyford and Brize Norton bracket where I live and my parents and I would probably have been lucky enough to go fairly early on as the SS4 and 5s were not very accurate.
I must say the polite and friendly USAF people we met during my childhood at Open Days were nothing like the movie stereotypes. My family and I were glad to have them watching our backs.
 
I lived 1,600 meters from the base of the SAC of Torrejon de Ardoz, the longest runway for the B-52 in Europe
 
edwest4 said:
pathology_doc said:
Now let us also discuss the contemporary, very bleak, and not at all comedic "Fail Safe".
If you can find a copy of the novel, it's somewhat different from the film but no less enlightening and horrifying.

The one thing the two have in common is that unknown to the authors, the basic premise was flawed (Source: Men Who Play God: The Story of the Hydrogen Bomb by Norman Moss). Everything that flows from it, however, was very well handled.
Click to expand...

I saw it and it reflected U.S. planning at the time. Unknown to movie audiences, there were other measures that were undoubtedly in place to prevent such a scenario. Trust me, both I and the people I knew had a great time in the 1960s. We knew this was just a movie, not real life.

Not long ago, I saw an interview with the former head of Russian Space Forces. He related that in the late 1960s, he received an alert of an attack by the United States. As he looked into it, it appeared we had launched all missiles. He had 15 minutes to decide what to do. He dispatched two high-speed aircraft to certain coordinates which would show a launch of this magnitude. The pilots saw nothing. Russian agents in the U.S. also saw nothing. He announced an end to the alert. Later, it was discovered that Russian satellites designed to detect a launch had been triggered by the sun reflecting off the tops of clouds at a certain altitude.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...t-everyone-you-know-owe-your-life-to-this-man
 
Let's face it Doctor Strangelove is one funniest satirical dark comedy ever made

Kubrick show the world the Cold War: Mutual assured destruction or short MADness
But also my bomb is bigger as yours as a insane manhood proof
You can also find sexual undertones throughout the film

Ripper unable to perform do stress
Turgidson had some fun with his mistress, prior the phone call from Pentagon
Major "King" Kong read playboy in B-52 looking on playmate "Miss Foreign Affairs" (Turgidson mistress)
the Soviet ambassador is called DeSadesky
Soviet Premier Kissov and President Muffley have name who are slang
and there Doktor Merkwurdigliebe from nazi germany
Or Major "King" Kong ride with large H-bomb between his legs down to ICBM complex LaPuta (the whore)
Finally Dr Strangelove getting aroused as he explain his breeding program in deep mineshaft...
...and erect from his wheelchair.

Also make Kubrick clever use of satirical
like the discussion between Turgidson and Muffley about to attack the USSR with everything they got.
and to choose between 20 million or 150 million killed
were Turgidson says ( with his hand on books labeled World Targets in Megadeaths)

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed.
But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks.

strangelove1.png

The film cut to president Muffley who is bald
main-qimg-96eb3fd3d14a3be046bd6e10e7fc69bc
 
Last edited:
edwest4 said:
Unknown to movie audiences, there were other measures that were undoubtedly in place to prevent such a scenario.
Click to expand...
The flaw that Moss wrote of is that the order to attack isn't an electronic signal that could go out by accident (as it does in the film, thanks to a single blown transistor). According to him, SAC training also emphasized that if your aircraft has not specifically received a directed attack order, you turn back at the failsafe line - even (as one pilot tried to argue) if the rest of your flight is going ahead and you see mushroom clouds rising behind you.

Granted, Burdick and Wheeler probably wrote it the way they did as a warning against complete automation, but they were wrong about such automation already being present.
 
pathology_doc said:
Now let us also discuss the contemporary, very bleak, and not at all comedic "Fail Safe".
Click to expand...
Fail Safe (1964) is grimm vision how highly automatic system fails do blown transistor, issue automatic Attack order to Bombers.
And how humans try to stop the unavoidable and the price they have to pay for it.

i impress by acting in Movie like Henry Fonda or Larry Hagman and Walter Matthau
Oddly to see Walter Matthau as Professor Groeteschele a cynical counter part of Doktor Merkwurdigliebe.
His cynical but realistic advice to Government makes the movie very depressive.

Another Movie is The Benford incident (1965)
by one of Producer of Dr Strangelove about nuclear-confrontation film.
Where ambitiously Captain Eric Finlander stalks a Soviet Sub to the final confrontation.

Or very depressing On the Beach (1959)
is about last moment of mankind after Nuklear War with salted Nukes (similar to Dr Strangelove Doomsday weapon)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom