well which is it?

It's not a War movie per se, but Wyatt Earp was a VERY close representation of what happened...

Black Hawk Down was close to actual events too. I did say CLOSE, not all the way correct.

I always thought Tora Tora Tora was supposed to be painstakingly done to acurate details. So much effort was put into details it cost the studio that did it a lot more money than they brought in.

I also heard the same sort of thing about the Longest Day although I could be wrong.

Ugh. Tough choice here.

I liked Longest Day, but its a bit off. Tora Tora Tora was indeed better.

Blackhawk Down was very well done, the only way it could have been better was to make it an hour longer.

I think I'll go with A Bridge Too Far, perhaps the best war movie ever made.
I also think it made an effective anti-war statement by telling the truth.

While not a movie, 'Band of Brothers' seemed to be extreamly historically accruate.

Patton. George C. Scott did a marvelous job accurately portraying such a complicated historical figure. And he looks so much like the actual Patton, it's scary!

Movie Patton:
http://www.4iq.com/patton.jpg

Real Patton:
http://www.info-france-usa.org/franceus/history/images/patton.jpg

"Patton" always feels wrong because of the damn tanks.

I'd vote for "A Bridge Too Far," which remains my favorite war flick of all time.

All evidence seems to suggest that Band of Brothers is also up there.

what about "saving private ryan" ?

Originally posted by stalin006
what about "saving private ryan" ?
The combat scenes and the Normandy landing in particular were amazingly well done. I think that the whole bit about Private Ryan was made up, though. This is understandable, however. They needed some sort of plot device if Spielberg wanted his movie to be more than just a bunch of battle scenes.

Its a fictional story, but based on real events.

I wouldnt call it a "historical" movie though, its entertainment.

So was Enemy at the Gates. Based on real people in a real battle, but not historical in the facts.

Not too many people care enough about that sort of thing, they just want to be entertained for an hour and thirty minutes.

Better off going to the library if you want accuracy. ;)

Band of Brothers was very good except for the dodgy accents of the British soldiers when they appeared

"Glory"

Band of Brothers. Although I only saw the end, I trust my dad's opinion.

bridge too far
tora tora tora
band of brothers
gettysburg

A Bridge Too Far
not just correct but good also

"The Bridge over the River Kwai" :p


:mischief:

One word...

PLATOON

I've been to Viet Nam and it was scarey all the memories this movie brought back.

Its a fictional story, but based on real events.

I wouldnt call it a "historical" movie though, its entertainment.

So was Enemy at the Gates. Based on real people in a real battle, but not historical in the facts.

Not too many people care enough about that sort of thing, they just want to be entertained for an hour and thirty
minutes.

Better off going to the library if you want accuracy. ;)

Sorry, but I didn't think Saving Private Ryan was "entertaining". I nearly puked seeing the first twenty minutes, and to me, the only thing that this movie does is underline the fact, that such kinds of patriotism, as executed by the Americans, which is based on violence and cruelty in pointless combats is totally ridiculous.

"glory" was good, for WW2, "a bridge too far" would be there, for vietnam mabye "we were soldiers", and "black hawk down" for modern operations. Private ryan was kinda boring.

Originally posted by sabo10
One word...

PLATOON

I've been to Viet Nam and it was scarey all the memories this movie brought back. Sorry, but no.

My oldest brother was in 3rd Brg, 4th Div, Duc Pho, RVN, 1968.

Any resemblance to Vietnam and Platoon is purely accidental.

From my perspective, a Bridge to far showed an airborne operation correctly, even though they omitted some of the more interesting aspects of the fight near Nijmegan ( this (http://www.cmohs.org/recipients/jtowle_citation.htm) is my personal favorite.).

An unmentioned film is Das Boote, which is extremly acurate in it's depiction of WWII German submariners.

Like Platoon, "Pvt Ryan" shows a GROSS historical distortion, namely, US forces committing or considering war crimes (the Ville sceen in Platoon would NEVER have gone unpunished, the JAG corp would have been tipped off, NO WAY would the execution of a civilian been brushed aside, and at one point in "Ryan" they consider shooting their German prisoner, which is ANOTHER war crime, revisionist "historians" that know NOTHING of how the US Army works wrote both scenes, no freaken way to both).

Tora, tora,tora was very well done historically.

Battle of Britain was also well done, but did add fictional elements for dramatic effect.

The Longest day is horrible historically, it's loaded with errors.

One forgotten film is "Guadalcanal diary", this is nearly 100% accurate depiction of the early days on the canal, and was made during the war, oddly enough.

Glory is fairly well done as well.

I'm not attacking you or your statement or anything AoA, but what exactly is your proof that the Americans haven't done any war crimes, if none of them have been documented and nobody talked about that? You can't just say something like that and have no proof.
With all due respect to your brother, but just beacuse he hasn't experienced any war crimes in Vietnam doesen't mean there were none.

namely, US forces committing or considering war
crimes

Again, no attack to anybody, but this is the same as if I would claim the same of any German forces throughout history. It hasn't anything to do with what their goals were and what they fought for, but I think you'll have to accept the fact that American forces could have commited war crimes without this ever becoming public. There simply is no plain good and bad. Sorry.

well american forces are said to had done war "crimes" in vietnam, by killing many woman and children in some villages, but it was few adn because of war weariness adn needed some psychological help, but i cant really find another war where war crimes could had been commited........what does this ahve to do w/ this thread topis?

Actually guys, many of you are victims of a long drawn out lie concerning the war in South-East Asia, the ONLY case of a war crime is well documented, by Lt Calley who was court-martialed and sentaced to 20 years (and commuted by Richard Nixon, but that isn't the army's fault).

During the war, and shortly after, a number of rear area folks, as well as PHONIES claimed they witnessed all kinds of war crimes, of which there was not ONE SHREAD of evidence.
One infamous book called "The Nam" was filled with these war "Stories", the author (who was part of the anti-war movement) never bothered to run backround checks on any of the people he interviewed, when this WAS done (for a great book called "Stolen Valour"), it turned out that NONE them had even BEEN to Vietnam!

Over the years, the propaganda of Vietnam was repeated over and over, for example, their is a claim that Young black men were killed in droves to fight the White man's war.
Do you know how many 18 year old balck men were killed in Vietnam in the 10 years us forces were there?
FOUR.
I'm not kidding, this is all documented.
Another favorite is the North and Cambodia were subject to saturation bombing, referred to as "Carpet bombing".
Another myth, the US bombed the North in well defined grids (that the NLF had determined), at the same time every day, and rarely hit anything.
They bombed the same bridges, the same roads, ect.
NEVER was the civillian population a bombing target.
In Cambodia, the airforce attempted (and failed) to interdict the Ho Chi Mihn trail (and it's odd that Vietnam detractors have NO PROBLEM with the NLF violating Cambodia's neutrality, which was the ONLY reason US forces bombed the trail there).
The Famous "invasion" of Cambodia in 1970 covered about 20 miles from the border, attacking a NLF held village, finding a handful of weapons, followed by a rapid withdrawl. This was heaivly condemned at the time (and again, nobody cared that the North had violated international law by being there), yet it was a small scale tactical operation.

It's hardly shocking that people still get this war wrong, I have seen respected history professors repeat these lies verbatum as fact, because it justifies the anti-war movement so beloved to the American liberals, yet runs completely counter to the historical facts presented by the people actually there. Many of them cannot seperate truth from their own ideology, and thus do a complete dis-service to history and their own professions, because they cannot command their own emotions.
History MUST be viewed dispationatly, or you learn NOTHING.

I am a veteran, one of the things the US army stresses is you MUST NOT obey an illeagal order, and killing civillians IS such an order.
Sorry, the Vietnam myth is exsposed.

As for WWII Stefan, there is exactly ONE instance of US forces killing prisoners in the ETO, during latle december of 1944, a misunderstood order was issued to execute SS prisoners from Piper's unit, an order happily carried out, as the Malmedy massacre story was spreading rapidly through the US army.

Sorry Stefan, just because you don't want to believe it won't change it.
If it makes you feel better, US forces happily gunned down any Japanese they could find, reguardless of orders all through the early part of WWII.
The US Marines had a saying on Gaudalcanal, "The only good Jap is a dead Jap".
They tried their damnest to make them good.

In "Band of Brother" American soldiers were shown several times to execute German prisoners.

In the Normandy Operation one officer killed a group of Germans that had surrendered to the paratroopers. My father says it was probably due to the problems that the 101st would have holding prisoners and in consideration of their position.

Indeed later in the series there are 2 other cases at least of Americans shooting prisoners of war or simply German civilians against the rules of war.


Were the veterans who advised on that series ignored? Or were they lying or indeed did American forces on numerous occasions (extrapolate) commit war crimes in WW2.

My father served in Normandy with the Royal Warwickshire Regiment (British Army). He was reluctant to talk too much about the war (lost too many friends), but his opinion on atrocities never varied: don't ever believe that the other side were the only ones who committed them; both sides did things that wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny, whether in the heat of the moment or because they knew they were unobserved and could get away with it.

AoA: You say that in WW2 "there is exactly ONE instance of US forces killing prisoners..." Actually what you mean is there is one detected and verified instance. That is not the same thing at all.

I think 100 accuracy is difficult to achieve, nevertheless it is always healthy to look at what other countries' movies has to offer. So I urge you to take a look at this website on 'artistic' War movies. There is a short synopsis of each movie and box covers for the video version.

I personally recommend 'Land and Freedom' and 'The Ogre'. (The only ones of the bunch i have watched)


http://www.1worldfilms.com/war_stories.htm

Speaking of "Saving Private Ryan"....

....what on earth was going through Steven Spielburg's mind?
I know that the allies in WW2 were no paragons of virtue (personally, I think that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime), but was it necessary to have so many instances of Americans shooting German prisoners?

And that scene at the end of the film, where the coward (I can't remember the characters name....the ammunition carrier) shoots the big German grenadier prisoner after the battle in the town....why was that included?
The art of a film director is to provoke emotions in the audience....
....well I'm sorry Mr Spielburg, the only emotion that provoked in me was utter revulsion and hatred for that bastard.
I wanted to see the coward die horribly after that.
Or was the scene ment to show that even gutless punks with a gun can kill an unarmed and helpless prisoner who is ten times better than they are, and it's ok so long as they wear your nation's uniform?

If I was an American I would be deeply insulted by that scene.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a lighter note, what about the historical correctness of some of the older films:-

Battle of the River Plate
Sink the Bismark
Charge of the Light Brigade (NOT the old black & white version, but the later colour one, staring Trevor Howard and John Gielgud)

And last of all....my personal favourite....Waterloo (in which Rod Steiger should have won an oscar for his portrayal of Napoleon. :love: )

I have to weigh in as well, AoA, and say that I agree with the spirit of your remarks: the US army is not as a rule a body of war criminals, and it is important in movies of this ilk to be careful with portrayals of such things. BUT, it is going a bit beyond the realm of credibility to imply moral perfection, and frankly I think it's a mistake to, since it creates too high a standard for the public to expect in a profession that has to make allowances for errors, mishaps and slaughter.

No armed mass of men is perfect. I remember with interest the 20-odd charges laid for various felonies - rape, theft and so on - against US troops after Desert Storm, and the comments from various pundits about how that was less than the crime rate for any other city of 500,000 men for the same time frame in the continental 48 states. Less, yes, but there were still crimes off the battlefield. (Don't make me look up the articles, please, it would have to be a microform search and I'll be a little pissed if you don't take my word for it...)

So, with crimes off the battlefield, is it so hard to expect that there might be a few on it? Hell, some have even gone so far as to suggest that Barry McCaffrey's post-truce order to the 24th Mech to start shooting at Republican Guard armor on March 2 was a "war crime" because the reports of scattered Iraqi firing were unconfirmed, and because the 24th was not ordered to isolate who was doing the firing from a division-sized unit (the Hammurabi) on the move. I disagree strongly with the idea that shooting anyone in the Republican Guard is a crime, truce or no! But the point is this - if McCaffrey himself can come under scrutiny, then why not a few infantry in the jungle?

I think the important thing to recognize - as I often have to do in arguments about Bosnia with the likes of Civaddict - is to restate the point about moral equivelancy.

Yes, war is sh*te. Yes, large bodies of armed men tend to do violent things. However, the random acts of rage or immorality by a few individuals in one side's army does not compare in the slightest to organized crimes by armies organized and deployed for the purpose of committing those crimes.

I always took the aforementioned scenes in BoB, Platoon and SPR to be attempts by the filmmakers to demonstrate that war is, indeed, a violent and chaotic pursuit where, golly, people lose their sanity, or their temper, and shoot each other. To apply the technical definition of "war crimes" to every portrayal of these events is, I think, taking the point too far.

To take one example, should the guy who shot the prisoners in Band of Brothers be up for charges? Sure. Should it force you to question the morality of the entire exercise in each case? Not necessarily. Does it make the US army guilty of "war crimes?" Not at all. I've applied the same questions to my grandfather's ruthless performance in Burma, and the equally ruthless performance of his colleagues. Same answers. The point is not to pretend that the odd moral line is not crossed; it's to be clear about what that means - and, more to the point, what it doesn't mean - in the context of a larger war.

R.III

As I said "documented and confirmed".

Band of brothers DOES NOT show this, it HINTS at it, WITHOUT actually doing it, if you go watch it again.

Modern writers LIKE to believe that men under arms are animals, but this is opposite of the actual case.

I can give you unsubstantiated accounts of WWII warcrimes, some I know are truthful (for example, my old division is reported to have shot some of the guards at a concentration camp in 1945, they were so appauled by what they saw, but this is not in the offical history).

But don't be fooled, I know from long experience interviewing service people, "tall tales" are quite common, and they often include BS about war crimes.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
As I said "documented and confirmed".

Band of brothers DOES NOT show this, it HINTS at it, WITHOUT actually doing it, if you go watch it again.

Modern writers LIKE to believe that men under arms are animals, but this is opposite of the actual case.


Sure, sure. I agree. But all I'm saying is that A FEW men under arms are animals. Is that so hard to beleive, even in the most disciplined army? And in a way, isn't that all Platoon is saying, for instance?

R.III

Platoon shows an act that NO US Soldier would cover up, the Platoon Sargent executes a woman to make a headman talk.

If that REALLY happened, most of the unit would turn him in, and be totally disgraced.

There are many unkown warcrimes, here is one that Len Deighton mentions in his fine "Blood, Tears and Folly".
British forces during the retreat on Dunkirk executed 73 "German spies" amoung the civilian Belgian population.
They didn't even get a trial.
German post war records confirm they had no such civilian spies in the area.

Am I the only one who seems to realize that this discussion is rather pointless?
I could write books to AoA with contents like "you shouldn't believe everything that is written", and he'd reply with books about documents, statements, interviews and everything, and nobody would be satisfied at all. A good healthy discussion is one thing, but this is purely pointless. I accept the fact that AoA wants to defend himself and the US Army. I don't share his point of view at all in this particular case, but I know that I can't win such a discussion and he can't win such a discussion, at least not in my eyes. Why don't we get back to the original thread topic?

i agree w/ stefan

Originally posted by Kryten
Speaking of "Saving Private Ryan"....

....what on earth was going through Steven Spielburg's mind?
I know that the allies in WW2 were no paragons of virtue (personally, I think that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime), but was it necessary to have so many instances of Americans shooting German prisoners?

And that scene at the end of the film, where the coward (I can't remember the characters name....the ammunition carrier) shoots the big German grenadier prisoner after the battle in the town....why was that included?

Did you not watch the whole movie or something? Miller let him go to turn himself in to the nearest Allied force, even after all his men tried to kill the prisoner (not too smart, but that's besides the point). He then joined up with that SS unit attacking Ramelle and shot and killed Miller with a sniper rifle (the same guy who had spared his life). Upham watched the whole thing and singled him out in the end (Notice he didn't kill anyone else). So, please, please, don't bash on a movie if you don't understand the bloody thing.... jeez

AoA did you watch the last episode of Band of Brothers?

They shot a German civilian who one soldier suspected of being involved in the camps. The man was beaten up and finnally shot in the back as he was running away.

That is a little more than a hint of a warcrime.


On the other occasion it was earlier in the last episode when the convoy of troops is moving past a barn and 3 unarmed german soldiers burst out, go down on their knees and get executed by an American soldier with a pistol.


As for the case in Normandy, SOMETHING killed those unarmed German soldiers and it was seen by one of the American soldiers who then spread the story.


It WASN'T a hint, it was shown on several occasions in Band of Brothers...for me this interpretation on this case puts in massive doubt your objectivity when you commented earlier on this subject.

Originally posted by Globber
Did you not watch the whole movie or something? Miller let him go to turn himself in to the nearest Allied force, even after all his men tried to kill the prisoner (not too smart, but that's besides the point). He then joined up with that SS unit attacking Ramelle and shot and killed Miller with a sniper rifle (the same guy who had spared his life). Upham watched the whole thing and singled him out in the end (Notice he didn't kill anyone else). So, please, please, don't bash on a movie if you don't understand the bloody thing.... jeez

Thank you Globber for answering my question about that last scene in "Saving Private Ryan" that I didn't understand. :)

So Upham befriended the big German when he was a helpless prisoner, and pleaded with Captain Miller not to shoot him, but later in the film during the heat of battle the German shot and mortally wounded Miller.
And Upham, who saw the whole thing (and was also spared when the big German passed him on the stairs), and who doesn't have the courage to fight in battle, even to save his friends, only finds the 'courage' to shoot the big German when he is again a helpless prisoner after the other Americans have won the battle....in which Upham played no part.
("I befriended you, and Captain Miller let you go. But like any good soldier fighting for his country, you rejoined your army and continued to fight, and ended up killing the man who spared your life. So I, a coward, will seek justice by killing you when it's nice and safe and you can't fight back, even though I didn't have the guts to do it in battle.")
I’m sorry…..I still don’t feel any empathy for the character Upham.

Anyway, this is just a fictional scene from a largely fictional film.
What about the historical accuracy of the film Waterloo? :love:

Originally posted by Kryten
What about the historical accuracy of the film Waterloo

Overall pretty good.

Apart of course from the usual endemic problem with the cinema's representation of 17th/18th century artillery: yes I know it's difficult to represent roundshot accurately, but that isn't really an excuse to have every single gun firing high explosive shells.

And don't get me started on the subject of recoil (or rather its absense) in movies....

But clawing desperately back to the topic.... Waterloo tried very hard to be as accurate as it could be. Certainly the uniforms were a lot more accurate than most films, and the fact they had almost unlimited supplies of disciplined extras* meant that the regiments actually looked like regiments. Too many films suffer from lack of manpower, so that big battles end up looking like "spread-out skirmishes", not to mention that most of the time actors - especially extras - simply don't move like soldiers.

The attempt to fit in every single famous quotation and event made it look somewhat bitty at times, but the sheer sense of familiarity that gives to anyone who's read up on the subject lifts the film to a higher level.

I think the charge of the Union Brigade was a little bit over-sentimentalised (BTW, whatever happened to the Royals and the Inniskillings? To judge by this and every other movie, the Scots Greys were the only regiment in the Union Brigade...!) but effectively captured the concept of an overstretched charge being cut to pieces.

I remember seeing the film when it first came out in the cinema. I was a young lad and it was the summer holidays. The sight of Ney's heavy cavalry milling around the British squares set light to my blood, and it was probably that which got me interested in the Napoleonic Wars in the first place.

*I can't remember the details, but they had extras supplied by an Eastern European army.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Overall pretty good.....

*I can't remember the details, but they had extras supplied by an Eastern European army.

Yes, apparently they used ten thousand ( :eek: ) Russian soldiers as extras, which is why the battle scenes are so spectacular.

There is a story about Ney's cavalry charge in the film.
Despite all the careful preparation, such as placing wooden stakes and string to mark out the British squares and everybody knowing that the thousand cavalry would be passing them by down pre-prepared lanes.....when the actual scene was shot, the sight of a thousand heavy horsemen thundering down on them was too much for some Russian soldiers, and a square 'broke'! :lol:
(This can be seen in some of the helicopter shots.....and makes you think about the bravery and discipline of the actual troops in reality.)

Another good film of the same type is "Gettysburg", although that concentrates mainly on the fight for Little Roundtop and Picket's charge rather than the whole battle.
I did think that MartinSheen was a bit weak and vacillating as Robert E. Lee, but it's still a good spectacular historical film. :)

Die Brücke (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0052654) looked reasonably realistic to me.

mmmh.....waht about "das boot" or "the widowmaker"

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
AoA did you watch the last episode of Band of Brothers?Yes.

[/b]They shot a German civilian who one soldier suspected of being involved in the camps. The man was beaten up and finnally shot in the back as he was running away.

That is a little more than a hint of a warcrime.[/b]I don't remember the scene.

On the other occasion it was earlier in the last episode when the convoy of troops is moving past a barn and 3 unarmed german soldiers burst out, go down on their knees and get executed by an American soldier with a pistol.Don't remember that either, could it have been edited for US television? :hmm:

As for the case in Normandy, SOMETHING killed those unarmed German soldiers and it was seen by one of the American soldiers who then spread the story.No, that scene I remember, that was RUMOR.


It WASN'T a hint, it was shown on several occasions in Band of Brothers...for me this interpretation on this case puts in massive doubt your objectivity when you commented earlier on this subject. I stand by what I say.

Stefan is DEAD wrong, his way of thinking is what leads to false history continuing to be spread, over and over.

I know he won't change, but I know I'm right on this, it isn't a matter of defending honor, it's a matter of defending historical truth, a much more important matter.

About war crimes. War is hell, it makes people do the darnest things. Everyone can snap from time to time. :crazyeye:

As for movies, historically correct or providing a good idea of the situation:
The Longest Day
Sink the Bismark/ Hunt for Bismark
Stalingrad (German Film)
Black Hawk Down
And uh, All quiet on the Western Front (Is that the right name? :confused: )

Cimbri

The Bismarck movie, do you mean the 1950s black and white version with Kenneth Moore?

Yes, Sink the Bismark in black and white. Don’t know about Kenneth Moore, but I think it’s the same we’re talking about. It’s a classic :)

Cimbri

I know the movie, it's told from the viewpoint of an RN Captain (Moore) in his HQ, and they show Bismarck and it's battles, Leutjens is a fanatic Nazi who makes long speaches.

Great movie. ;)

How about Ironclads? Has anyone seen Ironclads? I don’t know much about American Civil War history, but is the movie just vaguely accurate?

Edit: Uh, while we’re on the subject… The Battle of Midway, or just Midway (1976) That’s a great film.

Other good movies:
Julius Caesar (1953... I think)
Alexander the Great (1956)
The Ten Commandments (1956)… Hmm good enough.
Hannibal (1960)
The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)… Not bad either…

Cimbri

Word has it that there are going to be competing Alexander the Great movies. Did I get this right? One has DiCaprio as the lead, and the other is - I think - Colin Farrell, with Oliver Stone involved somehow.

Hopefully it doesn't turn into some homoerotic postmodernist schlepp.

I don’t know, never heard of this. But it sure sounds interesting.
Yeah, lets hope Hollywood don’t go too “Gladiator” on it…

Edit: Whoa! Alexander the Great (2004) directed by Baz Luhrmann… Check out this link:
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808402868&gpt=rc


Cimbri

I wonder what else they edited in the US version!

Did they edit the drunken American soldier who shot a German and a British Officer because they never game him "gas" for his jeep and THEN shot one of "easy" company in the head nearly killing him?


As for the Normandy killings...one of the "easy company" saw it happen. That other soldiers were talking about it as rumour DOES not make the original event mere rumour!

EDIT: LET ME MAKE THIS CRYSTAL CLEAR. In the version we see in Britain this event is dealt as follows...

1. We see group of German prisoners as easy goes by, one of easy company makes a comment and one of the "Germans" replies in English.

2. Conversation between soldier and American German.

3. Soldier leaves as Spears approaches...he turns around as we hear submachinegun fire, soldier looks horrified.

4. LATER in episode we get the RUMOUR scene.

I wonder if you JUST get the rumour scene...

.................................................. ..........................



Again I wonder about editing for if you can't re-call seeing the extra-judicial killings in the last episode (when they were in Austria) then I wonder how they portrayed the Normandy event.
I have the advantage in that I have "Band of Brothers" on DVD right here with me...

Stefan is DEAD wrong, his way of thinking is what leads to false history continuing to be spread, over and over.

No.
It is your very way of thinking that does this.
I am studying history in an objective manner.
Whenever I read up on something, whether it is a conflict, a diplomatic crisis, or even the rise of a power, I try my very best in studying more than one side in order to come closer to the truth.

This is because I do not believe everything that is written. That is a very big mistake of many people, believing everything that is said and written. That was the very cause why the holocaust succeeded. That was the very cause why there was war in the world, and why there still is war in the world.
I believe you when you say that there is nothing documented about war crimes commited by US forces. I do not believe you when you say that no US soldier ever commited a war crime. Do you actually think that the US army would have documented that? I know this is a bitter pill for you, but the US army is not the absolute all-wise all-knowing infinitely good all-healing force. US soldiers are human beings who can fail, unknowingly, unwillingly. Human beings are creatures driven by emotions in extreme situations such as war. And it is very well possible that they commited war crimes. They're just not so stupid to document that!
Claiming that no US soldier would even have considered, for example, shooting a German soldier for any cause, is untrue, it is propaganda, it is mind manipulation, which is the very thing Hitler did, which is the very thing Stalin did. I'm not saying you're doing it. There are some people who are doing it currently, though.
I really don't want to offend you, but you offended me first.

[Edit: changed passage which could have resulted in misunderstanding]

It is established that German troops were guilty of the Malmedy massacre, where surrendered American troops were gunned down.

However, American troops also were guilty of two seperate massacres in the Sicilian campaign in june-August 1943.

In the first incident 2 german and 34 italian prisoners were summarily executed by orders of sergent Horace West. He was subsequently tried and found guilty. He served a prison sentence of one year.

In the second incident 40 Italian prisoners were ordered to be executed by captain John Compton. He was aquitted and was later killed in action.

Both West and Compton served in the 45th divisions 180th regiment. they both claimed to haved acted under orders given to them in a dispatch by general Patton.

According to the Oxford Compendium to the Second World War had the reponsible american officers been treated the same way as the German officers responsible for the Malmedy massacre their sentences would have been: Patton - life, Bradley (the corps commander) - ten years, colonel E. Cookson the regimental commander) - death.

The Nurembug Trials, however did not allow for the prosecution of Allied war crimes. (Would have meant a decimation of the Soviet officer staff)

"(Would have meant a decimation of the Soviet officer staff)"


And Stalin was quite capable of doing that himself...

Stefan, your working off a false assumption, that I think US forces are paragons, go back and read all i said, you will see it isn't so.

Also, we are talking of two times and places, want to expand?

I'm up for it, let's start in Korea, US forces are ordered to hold check points, and inspect for infiltrators.
They instead kill numerous South Koreans, and this was covered up, but it was known, which is why I put credence in what I say, REAL events are ALWAYS known, there are no "secrets".
I can give others, in many wars if you like.

We know each other well, you know I'm never narrow minded, but you must also remember to react to what I say, not what you THINK I say, my friend. ;)

Kitten, the Normandy scene is similar, but the gunfire comes after an interval of several minutes, so it's not clear.
They did show the Drunk shoot a Brit, but i don't recall the other scenes, but I wouldn't put it passed US television to show different versions.

Since you have them, I retract my comment on Band, since it's obviously wrong.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Sorry, but no.

My oldest brother was in 3rd Brg, 4th Div, Duc Pho, RVN, 1968.

Any resemblance to Vietnam and Platoon is purely accidental.

From my perspective, a Bridge to far showed an airborne operation correctly, even though they omitted some of the more interesting aspects of the fight near Nijmegan ( this (http://www.cmohs.org/recipients/jtowle_citation.htm) is my personal favorite.).

An unmentioned film is Das Boote, which is extremly acurate in it's depiction of WWII German submariners.

Like Platoon, "Pvt Ryan" shows a GROSS historical distortion, namely, US forces committing or considering war crimes (the Ville sceen in Platoon would NEVER have gone unpunished, the JAG corp would have been tipped off, NO WAY would the execution of a civilian been brushed aside, and at one point in "Ryan" they consider shooting their German prisoner, which is ANOTHER war crime, revisionist "historians" that know NOTHING of how the US Army works wrote both scenes, no freaken way to both).


Might not be like your brothers experience but that doesn't quite mean it's totally inaccurate.

My father fought in a chunk of the vietnam war as well and he always considered platoon to be one of the most accurate movies that he saw to his experiences. He always said when asked what it was like "Turn the volume all the way up and multiply everything by 10 and the movie Platoon is pretty close to what I went through". He never talked much about it but when he did describe his experiences, he said such war crimes DID happen but not because they were all evil. Kids would take hand grenades, pull the pin, shove it their pocket and hug the nearest GI. When that happens to people near you a couple times, EVERY vietnamese was a potential threat and he said as bad it was they were occasionally treated that way. That meant they could very well have shot women and children if even slightly provoked without hesitation. He would not provide examples but I could tell he had a few he wouldn't talk about.

Albeit in Platoon the war crimes you mention were unprovoked and you are correct there that most soldiers did not do such things on purpose without being punished. Especially not as they occured in the movie. Some soldiers have been punished for executions of civillians and other atrocities so that too has happened just like in platoon. That's not new to vietnam though. In WWII germans had been executed in similar fashion. Band of brothers hints at that in the last episode when an american soldier kills a german civilian because rumours state that he may have been an officer in a death camp.

War crimes happen, even in the US. It's why the JAG corp exists. I should say though that it was never an act of the united states government but actions of a few bad soldiers who should never have been given a gun. As far I know the US military has NEVER condoned any such actions and always severely punished anyone who even considered it and got caught. But just like any crime, I'm sure some people slipped thru the cracks and got away with it. As much as we'd like it to be, military justice isn't perfect

Edit: I wrote the above after only reading up to the quoted passage. I read more and realize some of it has already been discussed. I also saw band of brothers recently so I know the scene I mention above did occur in the series. It's accuracy I don't know, but I have heard stories about similar actions in WW1 and WW2 before from veterans and non veterans alike.

Originally posted by stalin006
mmmh.....waht about "das boot" or "the widowmaker"

While it is fairly accurate "K-19: The widowmaker" is a military movie, not a war movie. Quite well done too. While it started off by demonizing Harrison fords character, they did a good job of explaining his motives later and I think his character may have been the better of the two captains.

I hope we're talking about the same movie :) :P

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
The US Marines had a saying on Gaudalcanal, "The only good Jap is a dead Jap".


That phrase was used by American civil war veteran Sheridan during the Indian wars.
He said that only good indian he had saw was dead.
US forces ended up killing women and children of natives into their villages.
I think that phrase shows exactly what kind of sick mind certain people can have.

But war is hell...
and best movie to describe it is in my opinion Das Boot. I remember hearing that someone close to the hollywood film-project U-571 few years ago said that Das Boot was terrible film because it portrayed germans as normal humans with real feelings and not Nazis.
I think U-571 was most terrible warfilm ever. Plain crap...

What comes to Platoon...
I think the story is interesting but the film is set into more fantasy world than real world.

And about war crimes...
War crimes do happen in all armed forces (also US). There are numerous events of WW2 that are said to be "unclear" what happened. if they weren't reported...doesn't mean that they didn't actually happen.

Isn't war itself a crime against humanity?
In my opinion...NO.
Because the evil isn't "there somewhere lurking" that we must defend ourselves against...the beast is withing ourselves.

Originally posted by ViceRoy
But war is hell...
and best movie to describe it is in my opinion Das Boot. I remember hearing that someone close to the hollywood film-project U-571 few years ago said that Das Boot was terrible film because it portrayed germans as normal humans with real feelings and not Nazis.

Since I had to pack for a move, New Year's Eve for me was spent sipping scotch and filling boxes in front of a TV watching "Das Boot, the Director's Cut" on the History Channel.

And while I agree it's a great movie, and I agree that U-571 was crap, I have to chuckle sympathetically at what you said above.

As in previous viewings of Das Boot, I did come to think of the crew as human beings. But the funny thing is, I still found myself thinking, "good job, well done lads" when the RAF swooped in and blew the living **** out of those human beings in the final scene. Nazi Germany was always human to me, which is all the more reason to have seen it as too dangerous to be left alone.

I look forward to more of this debate when the much-awaited John Cusack flick "Max" is finally released, since they take the "risque" step of portraying Hitler as "human" as well, earning widespread condemnation before the film is even out.

R.III

most germans during WW2 WERE humans, not everyone was a himmler or a hitler or a bloodthirsty SS execution squadron member.
even most SS members had nothing to do w/ crimes against humanity, they were soldiers fighting for their family and homeland, altough their cause was not good.

Originally posted by Richard III

I look forward to more of this debate when the much-awaited John Cusack flick "Max" is finally released, since they take the "risque" step of portraying Hitler as "human" as well, earning widespread condemnation before the film is even out.

R.III


[J.Cusack] But what is my motivation?


:D

One movie which I didn't care for particularly, but which seems to me to be accurate is "We Were Soldiers" starring Mel Gibson. It was way too mushy (gee, I wonder if the guy who's wife just had a baby is gonna die? :rolleyes: ), but the combat scenes were great and the battle between the 7th Cav and the North Vietnamese regulars was one of the few i've seen that was easy to follow. It was also interesting how they showed the North Vietnamese officers and men planning, preparing for battle, etc.

Originally posted by Panda
Die Brücke (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0052654) looked reasonably realistic to me.
It's a great movie that is indeed very realistic in the portrayal of the young people thrown into the "Volkssturm". It may have some technical problems (due to lack of money) but that doesn't make the story any less realistic.

"Das Boot" is also great, but of course it can imply to people that the U-Boat sailors were mostly good guys and the others were the Nazis, which is of course not really true.

Originally posted by Hitro
"Das Boot" is also great, but of course it can imply to people that the U-Boat sailors were mostly good guys and the others were the Nazis, which is of course not really true.

There'll always be people making silly assumptions. Generally people will pick out the bits they like and fit in their world view, and disregard or discredit anything that doesn't.

And I agree, 'Das Boot' is a great movie. :)

I just watched Enigma last night and was mildly entertained. Although it wasnt really about good old in the trenches warfare, It had a good story line(cracking the German Enigma code in WW2.) any thoughts on the truthfulness of this film? Not knowing much about the subject, I tend to believe most of the film because it was made in Brittian instead of Hollywood.:lol:

Originally posted by gr8ful wes
I just watched Enigma last night and was mildly entertained. Although it wasnt really about good old in the trenches warfare, It had a good story line(cracking the German Enigma code in WW2.) any thoughts on the truthfulness of this film? Not knowing much about the subject, I tend to believe most of the film because it was made in Brittian instead of Hollywood.:lol:

I've been hoping to see it myself, since Kate Winslet is nice to look at ;).

However, rumor has it that the plot itself is fictional, but the larger setting is accurate. IIRC, there's some security hole within the group because of some nookie with a spy. In truth, Britain was about as secure from spying inside the UK itself in WWII as any nation has ever been in modern history, thanks to the brilliant work of the XX committee and MI5.

R.III

Yes, I've seen the film and read the book it's based on and the spy plot (very convincing actualy) and characters are fictional, while the background setting: Bletchly Park and cracking the new "SHARK" german naval codes which threatened to turn-around the battle of the atlantic, is historicaly accurate I believe.

To tie up with both subjects(real war movies & war crimes) - how about "Casualties of War" with Michael J. Fox. It's based on a real event, so it should be a bit acurrate.

I found that one hard to stomach, Vonork. Its wierd really, I don't mind a good ol shoot em up or other brutal war acts, but when they stard doing those kind of things to civilians it really gets my feathers ruffled.

About the whole US war crime thing. What right do you, Stefan, as a German citizen have any right to talk about war crimes? Are you just forgetting the 6 million Jews and 6 million other people that were murdered?

Originally posted by napoleon526
"We Were Soldiers" starring Mel Gibson.
Read the book, which was extremely good, but havent seen the movie yet.

Guess I better rent it.

All this talk about war crimes... Why?

You cannot imagine the stress of combat, I have compared it to being in a bad car accident, except instead of lasting for a split second it goes on and on and on...

While no army anywhere in the world is innocent of such things, I think its common knowledge that most American soldiers do not engage in these kind of acts.

I knew guys who changed after seeing good friends get wounded by enemy fire, they became more ruthless.

Bottom line, some men are just rotten people, and when in a warzone where there are no police and gun in hand, will do as they please.

But this is a minority.

The Soviets and Germans were led by regimes that encouraged that kind of behavior in WWII, and many attrocities were committed by both sides upon each other.

most germans during WW2 WERE humans, not everyone was a himmler or a hitler or a bloodthirsty SS execution squadron member.
even most SS members had nothing to do w/ crimes against humanity, they were soldiers fighting for their family and homeland, altough their cause was not good.
Actually, the SS was indeed filled with the worst of the worst in the early years, before it started conscripting it was all volunteer, and has the worst record.

In contrast, there are many American and British soldiers who tell tales of honorable behavior by the men of the regular German Army.

None of you has mentioned the, in my opinion, best war films ever until now: "Apocalypse Now" and "Full Metal Jacket", and to a lesser degree perhaps "Thin Red Line"."Thin Red Line" came out about the same time "Saving Private Ryan" came out (or at least that's the time it came to Austria).

I know that none of those films might be historically very accurate, but since I don't care for re-enactments of a massacre just to show how it was, I like that they were made for different reasons. And I don't think that they deliberatly changed historical facts.

As for the purely historical films, I can't say which is most realistic, but I think "Stalingrad" is very good.

Another recommendable film, though I am not sure if it belongs into this category is "The Emperor and the Assassin", a Chinese epic about the Qin or Ch'in Dynasty and its unification of China (~200 BC).

I do not recall too many fight scenes nor their accuracy, but it is an astonishing film. I am not sure if it gets shown in the US but watch it, if possible. It arrived about the same year in Austria as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and was therefore mostly ignored. But until now big block cinemas have not eradicated all shabby, small, one-screen cinemas and therefore some good films still get shown.

i rented that movie, teh emperor and the assasin, its pretty good

hmm band of brothers isnt historally accurate.
you see easy compagny getting bombed by planes who not even existed then! :lol:
My favorite accurate movie is actually none however some get pretty close to it.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Sorry, but no.

My oldest brother was in 3rd Brg, 4th Div, Duc Pho, RVN, 1968.

Any resemblance to Vietnam and Platoon is purely accidental.


Like Platoon, "Pvt Ryan" shows a GROSS historical distortion, namely, US forces committing or considering war crimes (the Ville sceen in Platoon would NEVER have gone unpunished, the JAG corp would have been tipped off, NO WAY would the execution of a civilian been brushed aside, and at one point in "Ryan" they consider shooting their German prisoner, which is ANOTHER war crime, revisionist "historians" that know NOTHING of how the US Army works wrote both scenes, no freaken way to both).



I guess your brother never had to sit in the "bush" all night, in the friggin rain waiting to ambush an NV patrol then. It was all to realistic to me. but I agree Aoa about the "Ville" scene was kind of a stretch, but "fragging" DID go on there, and VC were NOT thrown out of Huey's to try and make them "talk", I haven't seen band of brothers yet.

Originally posted by SS Das Reich
About the whole US war crime thing. What right do you, Stefan, as a German citizen have any right to talk about war crimes? Are you just forgetting the 6 million Jews and 6 million other people that were murdered?
It's kind of sick to hear this form a guy who gave himself the name "SS Das Reich" :vomit: Why should a german not have the right talk about war crimes, I highly doubt that he was around when WWII happend or do you believe in inherited sin :rolleyes:

Anyway, I agree with Test_Specimen, Stalingrad is a very good movie, it's quite good at visualizing the horrors of war.

BTW, has anyone seen "Come and See" (I believe the orignial russian title was Idi i smotri)? I haven't seen it (yet) but I have heard that it is terrific.

"They were all killed! All of them! Dead."

Come and See/Idi i smotri. I saw some of it, but not all of it. It’s from 1985 and it’s about partisans. I don’t know if it’s historically correct. But the bit I saw was pretty good. Alas I was so drunk I fell asleep…

Cimbri

I'm not really familiar with the Irish history, but "Michael Collins" seemed a correct movie. (And Liam Neeson had a great performance.) So can someone tell if it was accurate or not?

Originally posted by philippe
hmm band of brothers isnt historally accurate.
you see easy compagny getting bombed by planes who not even existed then! :lol:

I have only seen two episodes of Band of Brothers on HBO, so I cant comment on that.

The book is quite good. Read it 2 months ago.

Citizen Soldiers and D-Day (by Stephen Ambrose) are both excellent as well.

Originally posted by philippe
hmm band of brothers isnt historally accurate.
you see easy compagny getting bombed by planes who not even existed then! :lol:
My favorite accurate movie is actually none however some get pretty close to it.

Could you be a bit more specific. Are talking of the scene were Bastogne is bombarded? Looked like Ju 88s or He 111s to me IIRC.

Yes the bastogne episode.I buddy of me(WHO KNOWS a lot obout WW2 said a plane in it did not existed then...)

My picks:
1.All Quiet On the Western Front -- as a veteran, I can tell you with complete honesty: if a movie isn't somewhat anti-war, it isn't accurate. Anyone who's been shot at doesn't like it. Period. This movie, for all its 1930s limitations, was the best.
2. Glory -- best representation of muzzle-loading combat in the 19th Century.
3. Das Boot -- I limped through it with my poor German, but it was marvelous.
4. Hamburger Hill (Vietnam) -- tremendously realistic portrayal of the war and its effects on the soldiers.
5. Zulu -- the battle of Rorke's Drift. Shows the bravery of the soldiers on both sides, as close to accurate as you can get. And seeing Michael Caine in his first movie, jeez, I never knew he was ever that young.
Honorable mention: When Trumpets Fade, an HBO movie about the US assault in the Huergon Forest. Stunning. Check it out.

Others: Band of Brothers, Henry V (the battle scene was much more realistic than Braveheart, just not as exciting), Tora, Tora, Tora, Guadalcanel Diary (within US wartime limitations, a pretty fair representation of what the soldiers went through), Pork Chop Hill (Korean War) and, I can't remember the name, a movie about a Sov tank crew in Afghanistan.

My disagreements with all of the above: Saving Private Ryan -- great scene on the beach (couldn't watch it, actually, too real), but the rest was crap. Platoon/Apocolypse Now were actually fairly good but too politicized to be accurate. Gettysburg, a butchery of perhaps the finest book written about the battle. Alexander -- it might have been good, but it was so boring, I couldn't watch it. Battle of Britian -- loved it, but have some quibbles about accuracy. Midway -- not bad, but screwed up a few times -- loved Chuck Heston's girlfriend tho.

My big complaint about many war movies is how they show the effects on the soldiers and the civlians caught in its path. It's horrible, horrible, horrible. Period. To make it anything less is an insult to the people who have experienced it.

I disagree, AoA, with you in some respects, but I think what everyone is missing in his posts is the fact the U.S. Army (and the rest of the military services) have iron policies against atrocities, and will prosecute if they can find out about it. We were told in no uncertain terms we are bound by our oath to NOT OBEY an order to commit massacres, execute prisoners, etc. In the heat of battle, people can get out of hand. But afterwards, you damn well better toe the line. And that's what AoA was saying, and with that, I am in 110 percent agreement.

And seeing Michael Caine in his first movie, jeez, I never knew he was ever that young. Stop throwing those bloody spears at me!
What right do you, Stefan, as a German citizen have any right to talk about war crimes?
I'm sorry but this is just plain ridiculous. He is German and in the past Germans committed war crimes so he can't talk about war crimes now. What kind of logic is that?

On topic, I don't know the most historically correct war since I rarely find out about the history of a certain battle. However I assume most, if not all, war movies have some inaccurately somewhere and it is best to consider them entertainment rather than documentary.

Das Boot
Zulu
Tora Tora Tora
Talvisota (Winter War)

I doubt no one outside finland except maybe the swedes and norwegians, have seen Parikka's Talvisota, but I think it's quite correct historically and one of the best war movies I've seen.

I dont think it was amazingly accurate but i loved the battle of britain, made me cry as well.

Is it true in america they made a film where the americans stole the enigma machine??

I found it hard to believe they would blatantly change such a major events history from the truth.

Ellie

Is it true in america they made a film where the americans stole the enigma machine??
They did steal the enigma machine it just we British stole one before them. They are always copying us.