Favorite WWII Film

**Hurin_Rules** · 05-10-2005, 17:31

Originally Posted by Redleg

Enemy at the Gate

The best part of the movie is the beginning 15-20 minutes where it shows the mass confusion of the Soviet Army and the lets throw men at the problem until the enemy is broken or we are destroyed. The first opening shots show the true horror and glory of war at the same time. The rest of the movie is not as good as those first open shots - but it does a decent job of showing the confusion, and determinaion of the Soviet Defense of Stalingrad.

I have to disagree with you there Redleg. While the opening scene was surely captivating, it gave the impression that the entire Red Army was a leaderless herd of untrained sheep. We saw the Comissars (communists, and therefore evil), but we didn't see the NCO's. Where were the officers of this horde? Where were the sergeants and lieutenants (or the Soviet equivalents)? Is it really accurate to show the soldiers not even having guns (small arms were not a big problem in the Soviet Army, if I remember correctly, especially not in a city with as many guns lying around as Stalingrad). Was it common for the soviets to put a machine gun behind their own troops and mow them down when they retreated?

I just found it very unbelievable. If it was really like that, one wonders how in the world these buffoons defeated the Nazis.

**Templar Knight** · 05-10-2005, 17:41

A bridge too far

**Nelson** · 05-10-2005, 18:25

Very tough to choose.

But I'm no rule breaker. I will exhibit discipline!

Saving Private Ryan

**Redleg** · 05-10-2005, 19:36

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

I have to disagree with you there Redleg. While the opening scene was surely captivating, it gave the impression that the entire Red Army was a leaderless herd of untrained sheep. We saw the Comissars (communists, and therefore evil), but we didn't see the NCO's. Where were the officers of this horde? Where were the sergeants and lieutenants (or the Soviet equivalents)? Is it really accurate to show the soldiers not even having guns (small arms were not a big problem in the Soviet Army, if I remember correctly, especially not in a city with as many guns lying around as Stalingrad). Was it common for the soviets to put a machine gun behind their own troops and mow them down when they retreated?

I just found it very unbelievable. If it was really like that, one wonders how in the world these buffoons defeated the Nazis.

I didn't say I found it believable - I once again found it demonstrated the mass confusion of the Soviet Army and the lets throw men at the problem until the enemy is broken or we are destroyed. The first opening shots show the true horror and glory of war at the same time.

The defense of Stalingrad in the histories I have read was intially a chaotic defense where Stalin ordered troops into the area to defend the city at all costs. I think the movie did a decent job of representing this. That it snub the comissars is to be expected - since well they were using your term "evil".
The movie shows very well the heroic effort of the Soviet Army in stopping and then defeating the Germans at Stalingrad. However in 1941 much of the Red Army was a bunch of leaderless sheep because Stalin "purged" the Army in the 1930's.

No war movie is realistic - the closest that I have ever seen to being realistic is The Cross of Iron and that is because it shows the individual intensity of some soldiers.

**t1master** · 05-10-2005, 19:37

where eagles dare

i liked the mountain setting and all the gunfights in the castle.

**Big King Sanctaphrax** · 05-10-2005, 19:41

Das Boot for me. I purchased it recently, after playing Silent Hunter III and getting a bit of a thing for U-Boats, and it's absolutely brilliant.

**PanzerJaeger** · 05-10-2005, 19:50

Is it really accurate to show the soldiers not even having guns (small arms were not a big problem in the Soviet Army, if I remember correctly, especially not in a city with as many guns lying around as Stalingrad). Was it common for the soviets to put a machine gun behind their own troops and mow them down when they retreated?

Both of those were true of the Red Army.

Now i dont know how frequently they were without guns, but i know it happened.

Executing those who retreated was quite common though.

You do have a point about the NCOs. They would not have been led by commissars.

I liked the character development in Enemy at the Gates. Although the sniper battle was fictionalized a lot, Ed Harris and Jude Law played very believable parts until the end when Eddy felt it neccessary to walk around in the open - something a sniper of his supposed experience wouldnt have done.

**Hurin_Rules** · 05-10-2005, 20:27

Originally Posted by Redleg

I didn't say I found it believable...
No war movie is realistic - the closest that I have ever seen to being realistic is The Cross of Iron and that is because it shows the individual intensity of some soldiers.

Heh, if you'll note, that was my choice for best WWII movie in that thread.

However in 1941 much of the Red Army was a bunch of leaderless sheep because Stalin "purged" the Army in the 1930's.

Granted, the higher officers suffered from the purge, but even given that, the troops filtering into Stalingrad would have had NCOs leading them; there do not appear to be any in the movie, beyond the odd traffic cop herding the hordes in the direction of the front. That, I think, is unrealistic.

**Redleg** · 05-10-2005, 20:46

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Heh, if you'll note, that was my choice for best WWII movie in that thread.

Granted, the higher officers suffered from the purge, but even given that, the troops filtering into Stalingrad would have had NCOs leading them; there do not appear to be any in the movie, beyond the odd traffic cop herding the hordes in the direction of the front. That, I think, is unrealistic.

THere was a lot more then that, that was unrealistic. But like Saving Private Ryan The opening scenes show a lot of the brutal reality of war