Its a film not a documentary. As GCH pointed out much earlier on the portrayal of events will have been toned down before and will be again - oddly enough people don't get so animated over that as they do for the removal of a fairly irrelevant racist name.



That said, were major historical events removed, whether vital to the plot or not, I'd be peeved - see Operation Burma (a film that was withdrawn in the UK for provoking unrest in cinemas) or U-571 for example - but the name of the dog is irrelevant.



The dog's name is symbolic of attitudes of the time - attitudes that could be difficult for some to square with the film's hero: Guy Gibson, incredibly brave war hero and racist (though during a time when racism was considered right and normal).

There'll always be one in the woodpile as far as Hollywoods concerned.

For chuffs sake Duncan are you on drugs?



This is just the standard racist apologist line....'them p[iak[/iis love being called nig[ig[/iers, they're laughing with me...its just them wooly Guardian reading liberals* who stop us and the pa[iki[/is having a good old laugh together...I mean...they'd not be complaining if white people called each other whiteys eh...just when we call sambo a nasty name"



*Who, of course are the main demographic for a war film so its bound to be down to them and their Zionist co-conspirators in the media that'll prompt this terrible affront to the story of the Dambusters.

No, I'm just making reference to a word which, should the boot be on the other foot, I would not find offensive. I am pointing out how ridiculous it is to "change" historical fact for fear of offence when in actual fact there probably wouldn't be any.



One thing I can say with certainty is I am offended by those who claim offence on behalf of others.



ps, thanks for inferring I am racist, if there was something to get offended about on this thread, I think that would be it...

For what it's worth I agree with the earlier post (McF) I think. The "Dambusting" raid wrought untold misery on thousands of civilians. (And the families of 53 of those who took part (40% casualty rate) Drowning children in their homes and killing in all a good 1500 to 1600 people. Something serious enough to cause an alteration to the Geneva convention forbidding the bombing of dams.



We seek to glorify that effort that we went to to achieve said sufferring (considering that in the great scheme of things it did precious little else other than boost morale), but wish to whine about the changing of a dogs name.



Perspective people, perspective.

How many dogs do you know called "honky" around your way ?



OK, don't answer that question...

Be careful with posts of that magnitude mate.





It wont be long before we're into a full blown Coventry versus Dresden debate.

Were I inferring such a point you'd have just underlined it. In chalk.



Whether that point were crass stupidity or racist undertones I'm not sure. It'd work well either way I guess.



Let's get this straight a white guy, from a white family, who lives in an almost exclusively white village, within a country where the vast majority are white feels its offensive to remove some otherwise irrelevent racist terminology because he feels perfectly placed to judge on whether members of non-white minorities might be offended by the term.



Yet he is offended that others might suspect otherwise and is happy to dismiss the notion that black people might be offended by the term anyway.



I'm offended by the term. Is racism only offensive if its directed at you personally now?



If its the principle of changing historical 'facts' why draw the line here? Would it be offensive for a right handed actor to play a left handed character or for language to be moderated or for other 'facts' irrelevent to the plot to be amended? Why do some people get specifically agitated by the removal of irreleventracist terminology but not other points?

Aaaahhh, but I don't see the Germans making self agrandising (Allied perspective) films about the bombing of Coventry. Seems to me that whilst the Axis powers are pretty ashamed of their parts in various incidents of mass loss of human life, the Allies see them as opportunites to slap each other on the back and congratulate each other on being masters of the universe.



I bet we don't see any epic films about the BEF scuttling out of France. Although a film of the workings of Fall Gelb and Fall Rot would be amazing, not least because they were actually born on Salisbury plain. Bet we never see any films about how a British Army officer invented "Blitzkrieg" but it was dismissed by High Command as "Fanciful", and of how Heinz Guderian came to England to see a live firing demonstration of this new style of warfare before taking it home.



Rant over.

Its a very wise point.



I guess there's an element of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, and to some extent history (and it's judgements of rights and wrongs) being written by the victors.



(Noting NSF's post) we think of the blitz in terms of the killing of civillians but the RAF and 8th Air Force raids in terms of the cost to the aircrews. Moreover, British war crimes are brushed under the carpet but German ones used to demonstrate the evil we were fighting.

Point taken to an extent.

As for films about the BEF making a swift exit from Dunkirk try watching 'The Forman went to france'. Not quite an epic but certainly an eye opener for the time it was made.

From a British perspective there was dear old Johnny Mills in 'Dunkirk'.



But again, its an example of film making and popular history being nationalistic - everything from the British perspective: the troops you see are almost exclusively British, same for the ships, and even then it doesn't show the full story [ibut [/i in the case of that film it was trying to show the events through the eyes of 2 main characters so can be excused a lack of balance.