There are plenty of spoilers in this, but Jurassic World is part of a franchise that just grossed over $1 Billion worldwide, so if you haven’t seen the movie, what do you think happens in the end, the humans survive or the dinosaurs kill everyone?
In Jurassic World, geneticists engineer a super dinosaur, the Indominus Rex, which breaks out of its cage and goes on a killing spree. Not only is the beast nearly indestructible, but it’s also smarter than your average dinosaur. And by average dinosaur I mean, of course, the ABC sitcom Dinosaurs. Indominus Rex sets traps for her victims, digs out her tracking device, hides from people and outsmarts enemies. Indominus Rex even talks to the other dinosaurs, and not in a casual chit-chat, “How are the kids,” kind of way, but about doing some additional damage.
The most frustrating part of Jurassic World is they have this super smart dinosaur, one that’s completely unstoppable. She’s the greatest enemy the world has ever seen, and the Indominus Rex goes on to commit the exact same mistake made by Adolph Hitler on the Eastern Front of World War Two.
In 1941, Nazi Germany controls almost the entire European continent. France, Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands have all fallen and have puppet governments controlled by the Nazis. Spain and Italy are allies. Great Britain is holding on by a thread and the U.S. hasn’t entered the war yet. In Jurassic World, the Indominus Rex kills everything in sight, outsmarts her captors and is virtually indestructible. They’re both at the height of their power.
Hitler has hardly any threat to his empire in 1941. England is struggling to stay alive and can’t muster a credible counter-attack. The United States is wary of entering the war in Europe. The only country that can pose any sort of opposition is the Soviet Union. But Hitler already put a plan in place to keep them at bay. Hitler avoids a two-front war by signing the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact (officially the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, for you Nazi-Soviet Paleontologists out there).
This is where the Indominus Rex stands after making a truce with the raptors at the midpoint of Jurassic World. The dinosaur has zero enemies, total control of the island and there’s no way for the humans to mount a credible counter-attack without blowing up everyone on the island at a tremendous loss of life.
Hitler and the Indominus Rex proceed to make the exact same mistake. It’s not so much that Hitler breaks the German-Soviet non-aggression treaty, but that the Nazis do so with brutal violence killing everything in their path. And then just a few decades later the bad dinosaur makes the exact same mistake as Hitler. When are these dinosaurs going to learn?
When the Nazis invade the area that’s now Ukraine in 1941, Hitler actually gets greeted with fanfare in parts of the country. Some of the inhabitants see Hitler as a potential savior from Joseph Stalin. When Indominus Rex breaks out of her cage and wreaks havoc on Jurassic World, I’m sure there are a couple dinosaurs who are happy. There must be a few who think they’ll be freed from the life of captivity created by humans. Humans create these animals in theme parks just to hold them in tiny cages. The other dinosaurs are like, “Yeah she’s pretty evil, but she can’t be any worse than the humans, right?”
This is where Hitler and Indominus Rex make the same colossal mistake. Hitler’s great error on the Eastern Front has nothing to do with dividing his forces, or ignoring the advice of his generals, or putting too much focus on Stalingrad or Leningrad. No, Hitler’s biggest mistake is that he violently suppresses and murders people who could be used as allies.
If Hitler decides to embrace and help the people on the Eastern Front who see him as a liberator from Stalin, rather than murder them all, Hitler wins World War Two. He would double his ranks, turn everyone in Eastern Europe against the Soviet Union and negotiate with the United States and Great Britain to keep all his new territory and win the Second World War.
That’s all Indominus Rex needs to do to win Jurassic World. She just has to negotiate with the velociraptors and stegosauruses and pterodactyls by saying, “Y’know, if you team up with me, we can run this joint and never have to deal with evil humans again. Those humans cooked us up in labs just to keep us in cages all our lives. Then they Instagram pictures of us for their Facebook feeds. C’mon, whattya say, you and me, let’s work together.”
That’s it. If the Indominus Rex says that to a single velociraptor, they win the movie. The dinosaurs just need to team up to take on the greater enemy – humans – and the movie is over. But the dinosaur doesn’t do that. Instead, Indominus Rex follows Hitler’s example to the same disastrous result because history always repeats itself.
Both Hitler and the Indominus Rex introduce unparalleled brutality in their respective regions. This makes people, and other dinosaurs, think Stalin isn’t that bad in comparison and team up to take down Hitler/Indominus Rex. They combat evil with even more evil and they’re only defeated with an unprecedented level of destruction. It all could’ve been avoided with a little bit of kindness, but instead the havoc brings their own respective downfalls.
If Indominus Rex wanted to learn from Hitler, rather than make the same mistake, the dinosaur would’ve changed strategies at her high point. The lesson is that if you ever get to the point in life where you control most of the world or island and you’re that close to winning everything, make allies with your terrified enemies when you hold all the cards. Otherwise you’ll just be another in a long line of sequels.
It seems important to start this post by clarifying I have several other qualms with Adolph Hitler. This is, by far, pretty low on the list of annoying things Hitler did in his lifetime, and given the opportunity to remark upon his record, this would not carry the same magnitude as a couple other of his decisions. But, really, doesn’t the whole labeling of the Japanese as “Honorary Aryans” seem like the catty declaration of a twelve-year-old?
It is exactly like one of those things where a kid starts a club, rules out a large swath of people, then realizes someone in that group has something the kid needs and he backtracks. What does the kid do? On one hand, you can make friends, possibly share something from your lunch box and invite the person over to play Wii. On the other hand, you can invade Poland.
Clearly kids like this don’t think through their exclusive clubs, alliances and treehouses. They accidentally rule out someone who has the latest version of Modern Warfare, or is currently engaging the United States in the Asian theater of modern warfare. Then they need to backpedal and come up with some dumb excuse to let that guy into the club. Something like, “You’re an honorary member of the club.” It’s just so happens that this particular treehouse happened to be Nazi Germany.
This is the problem I have with what Hitler did. It’s not the fact that he murdered millions of ethnic minorities, although I certainly don’t approve. It’s that he went about selecting who not to kill in a very childish manner. Own up to it, Adolph. You could have said, “Well, the Japanese aren’t as pure as the Germans, but you also don’t like the Soviets, so let’s work together.” Instead, Hitler said, “Here’s a special badge I made out of construction paper so that you can be the exception to my club house.”
It is wrong to exclude people from your club, regardless of whether you meet in a treehouse, grove of pine needles or the Führerbunker. It is then the decisive move of an asshole to murder anyone who you deem to not be racially or ethnically fit to belong in your club. You would think that exclusion would be good enough, you don’t then have to extend your reach across all of Europe’s middle schools.
This makes Hitler the biggest dick of all the fifth grade bullies the world has ever known. Whether he was taking the lunch money of Ukrainians or laying siege to millions of Russians so that he could stick their heads into toilets, he didn’t have to go so far as to saying one group of excluded people were “Honorary members.” It is inconsistent of a bully and makes him seem weak while playing cruel mind games on other less popular minorities who want honorary membership as well.
We can remark upon how unfair and murderous Hitler’s treehouse club was. Hopefully it has made us all better people and we can all live harmoniously in a loving treehouse where everyone is equal and accepted, except for those who are stopped by the sign that proudly proclaims, “No girls allowed.”
When our country is currently shackled by two wars being fought against a shadowy enemy, it’s nice to have a miniseries that takes us back to the classic days of being allowed to be obligatorily racist against specific groups of people.
The Pacific, HBO’s ten-part miniseries about the Japanese theater of World War Two, harkens back to the good old days of international relations when white Christian boys could be as racist as they wanted without fear of politically correct ostracizing. Whether you miss calling anyone of Asian descent a Jap, Gook, Ricecake or Slanty-eyed Motherfucker, or you just pine for simpler times where you could take in an all-white game at Ebbets Field, The Pacific has finally met your need.
Watching The Pacific must be frustrating for present-day Marines, who have to deal with a whole assortment of minority groups amidst both the enemy and in their own ranks. How can a soldier today get his frustration across when he has to take into account the religions affiliation of the person who wants to blow his head off?
Their lives would be so much easier if the Marines could call the enemy Fez, Ahmed, Cabbie or Sand Y’know, but this would offend half the people in their platoon. So instead, they have to say that a Secular Sunni Arab from the Helmund Province is trying to blow their heads off.
This is why The Pacific satisfies demands for old school viewers. Not because the war was against a clearly-defined enemy with a specific goal of trying to force surrender, but because we could refer to the enemy as slanty-eyed Japs and nobody cared. Maybe if our wars today were against Towelheads and Cabbies instead of Sunnis and Afghans, the rest of our goals would fall in line.
The fault lies with our modern-day generals who have failed at examining history to solve our current day crisis. If they had taken more time to look at the Soviet Union’s failed invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, we could see that the fault lied in the Soviets’ efforts to extend the iron curtain, rather than make the curtain more racist. Clearly we lost the Vietnam War because our efforts coincided with a time of enlightenment and cultural sensitivity in America.
If we can reach further back in history, maybe The Pacific will help us learn that racism clearly wins wars and it’s the only way to put America back on top.
I had spent so long mastering the tactics and military strategy of my last girlfriend that I am completely prepared for any type of conflict or insurgency, so much so that the relationship comes to a successful armistice agreement at the end. But then when you start a new conflict with a new enemy, or girlfriend, you are completely thrown by strategies for which you don’t have a defense.
This is akin to how the United States was unprepared in Vietnam because we were accustomed to Central Europe and Korea. In Iraq, we were unprepared because we had spent so much time fighting in Central America and the Balkans. This goes all the way back to the British being unprepared for the American Revolution because the Americans didn’t fight with traditional military strategies. This is exactly the same when a girl I have started to date takes on guerilla flanking techniques to encircle the sturdy defense I had in place for my previous relationship.
Whenever I start dating someone new, I am essentially France at the beginning of World War II. I am so confident in my ability to argue and get my way because trench warfare worked well in the first World War of my previous relationship. And yeah, my argument techniques are most applicable to trench warfare. I can stick to my principles – as wrong as they might be – through a war of attrition while undertaking an onslaught of whatever the relationship version is of mustard gas.
But then I start dating a new girl who is all about the German Blitzkrieg during disagreements, and my military strategy is devastated. All of a sudden, my front line is in tatters, half my generals are dead and my men are starting to flee in droves. I know I am headed for exile in Elba (no sex) if I don’t do something fast because her I.E.D.s and VietCong are making me look bad in the media.
I can either adapt or call in allies, but since the campaign is already lost in the press, it’s really just trying to put a healthy spin on things from an economic standpoint since the war is morally lost. This leaves an uneasy peace between two nations, one of which has earned her independance, the other now a weak shell of a man from who other girlfriends are now emboldened to secede. On the bright side, these now former foes have become stabilized and – like Vietnam – can hopefully someday become a beautiful vacation destination.
I think I found the solution to getting kids to read boring, but historically important pieces of literature: turn them into Mad Libs.
No kid wants to sit through these tragic and dense tomes, but they must be taught because they’re historically important and still relevant. So we’ve reached this sort of culturally understanding between students and teachers where the books are assigned, but it’s fine to skim it, read the first chapter and that’s good, grab the CliffsNotes, or simply read the description on back.
But if we turned these important books into Mad Libs, kids would love it. Because now you could make your own diary of Anne Frank. It would be fun, it would be interactive and it would be creative. All while getting the important message across. Or at least you would know the kid had read the book. Let’s try it out:
“It’s a wonder I haven’t abandoned all my _______ (pl. noun), they seem so absurd and ______ (adjective). Yet I ____ (verb) to them because I still believe that people are truly good at _____ (body part). It’s impossible for me to _____ (verb) my life on a _______ (noun) of chaos, _____ (noun) and death. I see the _____ (place) being slowly transformed into a ______ (noun), I ____ (verb) the approaching thunder that, one day, will destroy us too, I feel the suffering of _____ (number). And yet, when I look up at the sky, I somehow _____ (verb) that everything will _____ (verb) for the better, that this _____ (noun) too shall end, that peace and _____ (noun) will return once more.”