user38 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I just finished watching that Battle of the Bulge movie with Henry Fonda. I can take a bit of artistic license in movies but only to a point. For example, when Sergeant Rock and Lieutenant Danno are misdirected by the Germans posing as MPs they are beneath a sign indicating Ambleve was 36 kms on the left road and Malmedy was 42 kms on the right road. Given the signs were supposed to have been switched Malmedy would have been on the right and Ambleve on the left. Given Malmedy is roughly 20 kms northeast of Ambleve that would put them approximately 40 kms northwest of Malmedy. That is, they would have been in Germany somewhere near Schleiden. Clearly the allies were nowhere near Schleiden in December 1944. This kind of lazy inattention to historical detail in war movies really annoys me. Am I the only one who watched this movie and said "Does no one in the Hollywood movie industry know how to read a map?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shredder Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The entire movie was an error - it would be easier and much more efficient to list things that were historically accurate (it would be a very short list). Having said that, why doesn't Battlefront include rolling flaming barrels of gas as an allied weapon? Maybe could be added in a patch I suppose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user38 Posted June 7, 2011 Author Share Posted June 7, 2011 Another issue I have with the movie is its portrayal of King Tiger tanks. I remember watching an apparently endless procession of these tanks and thinking "How could the producers make this kind of error? Don't they realise that the Germans only had about a hundred of these King Tigers tanks?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I thought the movie silly enough to make a cmbo scenario for it years ago. Yes, you control the m24 chaffee/shermans fighting King Tigers over the desert of the Ardennes. Rather a large scenario that got me started with evil scenarios. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The movie itself portrays the fight between the US and Germans in 1944. That is the end of its historical accuracy, even the name is utterly wrong because "The Battle of the Bulge" was really the Patton/Monty offensive that took place after the German offensive had created the Bulge, which is not really covered in the movie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredrock1957 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The only thing worth watching in that movie is Telly Savalas sitting in a blown apart turret.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Everything. Period. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The movie itself portrays the fight between the US and Germans in 1944. That is the end of its historical accuracy, even the name is utterly wrong because "The Battle of the Bulge" was really the Patton/Monty offensive that took place after the German offensive had created the Bulge, which is not really covered in the movie. not true. they made reference to the 101st response to a german request for their surrender. "nuts" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 User, to add to your I think you will find the chinstraps, on the M1 pots are canvas and not padded cotton as it should be, tsk, tsk almost as bad as SPR getting the wrong ammo belts for the 30 cals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Keogh Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I agree with the poster who stated that the one should concentrate on what the film got "right" because it would be a much easier (and extremely short) list to compile. When the first lines of the movie state: "...with Patton's 3rd Army to south and Montgomery's 8th Army to the north..." you know that you're in for an ahistorical fairy tale. And the rest of movie with Francisco Franco's Spanish Army playing both the Germans (in their M-47 Patton tanks) and the Americans (in their M-24 Chaffees) is a historical farce. That being said, I've always enjoyed it. As a 1960's action/adventure flick, it's not bad and Robert Shaw is pretty darn good as "Colonel Hessler." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonRocko Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The movie wasn't supposed to be accurate. It was meant to show the flow and feel of the battle, stressing the time and petrol situation. The battles are hypothetical. They tried to give you a "feel" for the campaign, not a historical account. Robert Shaw, in his black panzer uniform, is cool! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The big mistake was giving the movie over to Ken Annakin to direct, who had directed "Swiss Family Robinson" a few years before. Admittedly he didn't do too shabby a job on "The Longest Day", though that film was more of a vanity piece littered with star cameos than a real war movie. One of Annakin's last films was "The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking", which was a superior film to his Bulge picture. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RookieCAF Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 As a "yarn" the movie is OK. As a historical narrative, not so much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 So out of curiosity, after Malmedy did SS troops have an even bigger problem surrendering than before? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 No, they were always able to surrender quite easily. Surviving the surrender was a different question... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 From the Wiki on Allied War Crimes: "In the aftermath of the Malmedy massacre a written order from the HQ of the 328th US Army Infantry Regiment, dated December 21, 1944, stated: No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight.[38] Major-General Raymond Hufft (U.S. Army) gave instructions to his troops not to take prisoners when they crossed the Rhine in 1945. "After the war, when he reflected on the war crimes he authorized, he admitted, 'if the Germans had won, I would have been on trial at Nuremberg instead of them.'"[39] Stephen Ambrose related: "I've interviewed well over 1000 combat veterans. Only one of them said he shot a prisoner... Perhaps as many as one-third of the veterans...however, related incidents in which they saw other GIs shooting unarmed German prisoners who had their hands up."[40] Near the French village of Audouville-la-Hubert, 30 German Wehrmacht prisoners were massacred by U.S. paratroopers " Always hard to know what really happened, as they say the victors write the history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The worst thing about this movie was in high school they ran it on the monitors during home room everyday. We would get periodic breaks with It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, a much more realistic portrayal of WW 2 conflict. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodkin Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Does anyone know what period 'CM Bulge' and it's modules will cover? Obviously Operation 'Watch on the Rhine' and Nordwind, but what about the Alsace/Lorraine campaign before that or whatever the Brits were doing up north? Or is that supposed to be covered in Normandy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 in the movie "the longest day", john wayne told his battalion "your mission tonight is strategic. you can't give your enemy a break. send him to hell." that sounds like a no prisoner order to me. was that order actually given to the paratroopers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Muffley Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Always hard to know what really happened, as they say the victors write the history. And Stephen Ambrose writes something else! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 From the Wiki on Allied War Crimes: "In the aftermath of the Malmedy massacre a written order from the HQ of the 328th US Army Infantry Regiment, dated December 21, 1944, stated: No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight.[38] Major-General Raymond Hufft (U.S. Army) gave instructions to his troops not to take prisoners when they crossed the Rhine in 1945. "After the war, when he reflected on the war crimes he authorized, he admitted, 'if the Germans had won, I would have been on trial at Nuremberg instead of them.'"[39] Stephen Ambrose related: "I've interviewed well over 1000 combat veterans. Only one of them said he shot a prisoner... Perhaps as many as one-third of the veterans...however, related incidents in which they saw other GIs shooting unarmed German prisoners who had their hands up."[40] Near the French village of Audouville-la-Hubert, 30 German Wehrmacht prisoners were massacred by U.S. paratroopers " Always hard to know what really happened, as they say the victors write the history. dont rely on Wiki for this stuff. A lot of it appears to be posted by neo-Nazis: 1. the 328th Rgt order was given right after Malmedy. It was rescinded a few weeks later, it does not appears to have been followed; 2. the famous quote by Ambrose is the one which is always quoted, but is impossible to pin down. Given his general poor academic reputation, I would certainly not give any credence to it. It is either a fabrication or a gross exaggeration. 3. the Audouville-La-Hubert massacre? give me a break. wiki references a Der Spiegel article which gives no references. Has anyone ever even heard of this "historical event"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 In the movie 'The Longest Day,' John Wayne told his battalion "your mission tonight is strategic. you can't give your enemy a break. send him to hell." that sounds like a no prisoner order to me. ... and ...? An actor, in a movie, delivered a line that could be interpreted - if you are so inclined - as a 'no prisoners' order. Except he wasn't delivering orders. He was reading lines and acting. In a movie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 It's Hollywood at its worst, promulgating all sorts of BS stereotypes, bad history and appallingly bad characterization. There were real historical heroes aplenty to share with the American viewing public, but Hollywood has always gone for the lazy way out with cookie cutter bad guys and phoney dialog. Probably because most of the producers and directors never went closer to war than seeing each others' films. Some stars were veterans and when they could, they'd work with a movie to make it better - sometimes. Other times it seemed they just wanted to be paid and then get the hell off the lot. Audie Murphy worked hard to try to give "To Hell and Back" an authentic feel and given the restraints of Hollywood's culture of the day, succeeded more than some others did. But then, he had a personal investment in it that went far beyond ego. In the end, I think these sort of bad Hollywood films were catering to a special sort of audience, who went for the popcorn and the cheering the good guys and booing the bad ones, not for a reminder that War is truly Hell. First war movie that ever I saw that left me feeling I'd seen something of value, was "Pork Chop Hill" (No not Hamburger Hill); but then too, Gregory Peck was a thinking audience's sort of actor. If you haven't seen it, you might want to look it up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 dont rely on Wiki for this stuff. A lot of it appears to be posted by neo-Nazis: Yes I agree, that is why I was saying the victors write the history. I have to say I find it difficult to believe that any commander would be silly enough to issue a written no prisoners order. Sure it may have been mentioned verbally but officially I don't think so. Reading through a lot of the references relating to the issue there are a great deal of neo-nazi writers on the subject and any that aren't are accused of being neo-nazis so I guess we will never truly know. I am sure surrendering soldiers were shot on the battlefield or not long after they had been taken captive by emotionally charged men , but I can't imagine any soldier in the Western Armies executing another in cold blood, perhaps that is naive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Yes I agree, that is why I was saying the victors write the history. I take it you've never heard of the Eastern Front? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.