Most Accurate War Film

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

As a high school history teacher, who does a class on WWII, I always show Saving Private Ryan, Das Boot, Several episodes of the Band of Brothers. I also show a few scenes from Pearl Harbor because its crap and all the kids have seen it. I stop it alot and point out the problems. I love Tora, Tora, Tora but it is a little slow for high school kids. Interested in seeing some other opinions.
 
Sounds like an interesting class! I hope you point out that the Monty slur in SPR is unwarranted and inaccurate,

You could accuse him of many things; politically - niaive, egotistical, bombastic, racist, etc etc but 'overrated' is just plain wrong - to control such a force and achieve, precisely, his D+90 phase lines shows just how good a general he was.

Personally I'll never forgive Spielberg (military experience zero, and with a great debt to the UK re: the final solution) for including that line.

Indicative IMO of US revisionist historians' prejudices and playing to the gallery - it's not a point made in the best book on D-day (the Longest Day) but trotted out often in Stephen E Ambrose's lesser tome.

Just my hobby horse - but you did ask for other opinions.
 
rogthedodge said:
You could accuse him of many things; politically - niaive, egotistical, bombastic, racist, etc etc but 'overrated' is just plain wrong - to control such a force and achieve, precisely, his D+90 phase lines shows just how good a general he was.
Click to expand...

Just cause a character uttered the line, it does not mean Speilberg intended to relate a fact. It reflected, true or false the opinions of many.

Monty redeemed himself in Marketgarden however....
 
I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted his job. Command decisions almost certainly put a general in a position that is Godlike. It takes a lot of courage to rise to that rank in wartime. I am sure there have been some bad ones (I worked for one) but for the most part they did a good job. I thank the Brits and all their ranks Ausies etc.) for my freedom as well as my own military. I think Monty was a whole lot more effective than "Westy".
 
Was the Monty slur really unwarranted? I mean, did the common US soldier at that time have that idea of Monty or later? Its just possible a few GIs were of that opinion regardless of the facts. Same as the Mustangs at the end. Could've been Typhoons but didn't most GIs just assume that anything in the air was a P-51.

The film shows that Spielberg did his homework and did his best to make an accurate film regardless of revisionist history. Only film I know that accurately portrayed a squad, i.e. one BAR man and the Capt. had the Thompson, not to mention the only close facsimile of a Tiger tank in a movie.

Spielberg loves war movies, his first was an air force flick as a child. I don't see him "playing to the gallery".


Monty redeemed himself in Marketgarden however....
Click to expand...

 
Well, most guys just packing weapons and doing what they are told (GI's) don't stop to consider any leadership other then the next highest non-com that is screaming at him to save his life or to get his ass in motion. Its just not that complicated. Boot camp pretty much suppresses your individuality and for a good reason. If you are being fired upon, the last thing you should do is any sort of complicated thinking. You should rely on your training and your instincts to save your ass or or your buddy's ass.

Leave the thinking to the generals.
 
Well this is going to be cool.

The veterans that were portrayed in the series Band of Brothers along with the actors that portrayed them will be here at the airfield that I work at for 2 hours next tuesday to take pictures and sign autographs.

I am going to take my copy of Band of Brothers and get it autographed and get photos with the veterans themselves together with the actors.
 
Thats cool..

Back in 94, I met a bunch of the surviving "Doolittle Raiders". I wish I woulda had them sign something
 

Not wishing to hijack the thread but yes it was. Why include it?

'Over-rated'? Presumably that's why he was trusted with overall command of the entire landing

Why not mention that the Brits Canadians were facing virtually all the German armour? Why not mention the British paradrop had been pretty good, whereas the US drop was a near disaster?

US landings would have benefitted from the 'Funnies' but the commanders refused and the troops paid the price

Or even why not mention Eisenhower had never seen any action at all?

These are just 4 facts that could have replaced an opinion. It was a cheap shot.

It just confirmed that lie (and let's face it most young people's opinions are formed by films) that the landings were a US success backed up by a few brits and cannucks who just got in the way. The implication was clearly that Monty was just in charge of part of the landings and those 'other allied' units weren't doing their bit. A 10 minute trawl of the 'net will easily find this now stated as truth.

As I said it's strange that it's not in the Longest Day but prevalent in Stephen Ambrose's much more partisan re-hash 40+ years later.

Many soldiers hold opinions, just because they do doesn't warrant their inclusion - for example I don't recall the 'N' word being included whereas it was in widespread usage among white Americans at the time. etc etc
 
But I have seen movies where slurs such as the "N" word and others are used to keep with the reality and accuracy. We're not taliking global politicians and avid Newsweek readers here. These were plain and simple GIs who had been fighting with Monty since Africa and were aware (although not told the whole truth) about the tension between Patton, the Brass and Monty. I saw that as an appropriate line to use. May not have been true, as much scuttlebutt wasn't, but approriate for that time and place within those soldiers.

Many soldiers hold opinions, just because they do doesn't warrant their inclusion
Click to expand...
Including such lines does become necessary if you want to create a character. Otherwise we get something akin to "THX 1138".

and isn't there some slight disdain for an ally? My boss is better than your boss, etc. Patton and Eisenhower were loved by the troops for the most part. Any others surely wouldn't be as good. Its called morale.

I don't see any political or revisionist meaning behind the line other than to give a feel of GIs at that time. I'm sure GIs had no inkling of those 4 facts you state even though afterward they were made clear. Its just a line in a movie.

I do agree that history is sorely lost upon the younger generation. Reminded me of just last night during the Tonight Show and Jay Leno's Jaywalkers a young girl couldn't recall the Santa Maria. When I was a kid that stuff was drilled in us! Its a shame that what they do see is alot of bitchin from the A-Bomb display in DC to Ken Burns being sued. History is tossed aside and lost.
 
I loved the movie myself(private Ryan) and just looked at the comment as something a GI might of said of Monty, even now you still hear how the americans won the war and the brits and canucks just sat on thier collective buts. There is a thread on this about this very topic.
 
Hmm. I wonder who doled out the beach assignments. The Americans sure got shafted by someone? Utah and Omaha sucked.
 
Interesting point - I don't know.

I'd always assumed it was due to their proximity to Cherbourg / Brest which would be needed to handle the resources directly shipped from the US.

I know Monty's plan was that UK/Canada forces would provide the blocking force while the US built up their forces and used that room to manuveur for the southern flank thrust.

Certainly not beaches I'd have chosen to land on!
 
Utah did not "suck". It was no less ideal for landing than any of the British/Canadian beaches. Omaha was the only drawback to the entire landing area but it was a necessary evil; to join the two beach-heads.. It was only made worse by the DD Shermans being released too early; eliminating all armour support for the assault troops on the beach.
There's several people you can write to if you want to complain about how the U.S got "shafted" - Eisenhower, Mallory or Montgomery will all be happy to reply to your queries.

The only reason it seems that the British and Canadians got it "easier" - albeit, the Canadians lost just as many as the U.S on Utah - it because the Commonwealth forces was because the DD Shermans made it to shore and provided support.

And rogthedodge pretty much hit the nail right there on the head; the U.K forces were confronted by Caen - a large city, not ideal for armoured thrusts - the "open" land was entrusted to the larger, better supplied and more mobile U.S forces to swing around to capture Cherbourg for a better supply base - then move south. And flank the opposing German forces ... meanwhile the British would slug it out through Caen - ...the whole slugging it out through Caen bit took longer than expected ...but hey, Germans were freakin' awesome at any army action they ever attended.
 
Well it looks like I will not be going to meet the Band of Brothers actors and veterans on Tuesday. I have to go and have some medical stuff done on tuesday and wont be able to make it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The Shepherd....Full Animated Film!
Replies
3
Views
611
Crimea_River
Korea war animated map.
Replies
2
Views
675
Gnomey
Im writing a book about Russian cold war aircraft specifically the SU-27 and Mig-29.
Replies
7
Views
489
Tomcat
US bomb from World War II explodes at Japan's Miyazaki Airport, cancelling more than 80 flights
Replies
4
Views
603
wheelsup_cavu
Civil War
Replies
8
Views
906
manta22
Menu
Log in
Register