"Fury" - Movie. Bollywood Boycott Time again

[Feuer Frei!]

*Sigh*

Brad Pitt and a Sherman tank, Bollywood strikes again it seems.
Because you know, 3 Americans against 300 SS and attempting to re-write history by displaying the Sherman tank in the Ardennes Offensive as a imba and invincible weapon is the thing that needs to be seen by people.

Err yeah right.

Entertainment you say? Riiight.

Shermans were infamous for being easy prey to German armor.

And who could forget Brad crossing no-mans-land in Legends of the Fall and took out a machine gun nest with a knife :haha:

What a joke.

Seriously, who watches this tripe, unless of course you need some propaganda quick fix.
Or you want to fantasise some more about killing Nazis.
This is old.


Only good thing in this film (Fury) is that they are using genuine Shermans and the last remaining working Tiger Tank.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2713180/?ref_=ttpl_pl_tt

[Jimbuna]

Only good thing in this film (Fury) is that they are using genuine Shermans and the last remaining working Tiger Tank.

I dunno, the smoke looked like real smoke to me.

[Dread Knot]

*Sigh*

Brad Pitt and a Sherman tank, Bollywood strikes again it seems

Does Brad Pitt sic the "Bear Jew" on an unsuspecting German for interrogation purposes at some point? :O:

Sounds like the U-571 of tank movies.

[Rhodes]

Does Brad Pitt sic the "Bear Jew" on an unsuspecting German for interrogation purposes at some point? :O:

Sounds like the U-571 of tank movies.

I think that is from the same script writer!

[Joefour]

Maybe SOME DAY Hollyweird will come up with a legit raison d'etre.

[Betonov]

And who could forget Brad crossing no-mans-land in Legends of the Fall and took out a machine gun nest with a knife :haha:




He did sneak up on the gun team in the cover of the night, and took them out with a knife unspotted :03:

He'll do the same with a sherman, sneak up behind on a tiger, stab it with a giant knife at the end of the barrel and sneak off

[Buddahaid]

In it's defense I don't think very many war movies have been much more than entertainment and bend history as needed for the screen play.

[Oberon]

He did sneak up on the gun team in the cover of the night, and took them out with a knife unspotted :03:

He'll do the same with a sherman, sneak up behind on a tiger, stab it with a giant knife at the end of the barrel and sneak off

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/g636683874.gif


I'll save a seat here for Hunter, I'm sure he's already typing a long rant about Hollywood movies (don't call them Bollywood...some Bollywood films are actually quite good).
I had hopes for Fury when I first heard about it...but those hopes have gone down the more I've heard about it. Hollywood seems to do for WWII American military forces what Russian game developers do for WWII Soviet military forces. :dead: :nope:

[BossMark]

My mate was on about going to see this then go for a few beers. think maybe I will just stick to the beer. :yep:

[HunterICX]

I'll save a seat here for Hunter, I'm sure he's already typing a long rant about Hollywood movies (don't call them Bollywood...some Bollywood films are actually quite good).


Hollywood?!?!?!
http://i.imgur.com/QpOcdeJ.jpg?1

Well, I'll just keep it down and just say one thing.
Don't label Fury as an Bollywood film as Bollywood films even a bad one can be enjoyable to watch, can't say the same regarding Hollywood films especially when they're bad.

[Betonov]

Well, I'll just keep it down and just say one thing.
Don't label Fury as an Bollywood film as Bollywood films even a bad one can be enjoyable to watch, can't say the same regarding Hollywood films especially when they're bad.

Yeah, Bollywood films are about dancing, singing, bright colors, dancing, singing, some personal story, dancing, singing, retelling of folklore and some more dancing and singing.
But they do focus on the story a lot more than effects.

[HunterICX]

Yeah, Bollywood films are about dancing, singing, bright colors, dancing, singing, some personal story, dancing, singing, retelling of folklore and some more dancing and singing.
But they do focus on the story a lot more than effects.

and they have fightscenes involving tractors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QZ8o25u3Xo

:D

[Betonov]

and they have fightscenes involving tractors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QZ8o25u3Xo

:D


EPIC !!!!!!! :D Bad cinematography BUT EPIC !!!!!
Give these guys the Hollywood budget :)


And I see where 3:30 in this video came from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8hvyjZWHs

[Oberon]

And I see where 3:30 in this video came from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8hvyjZWHs

Hey...where did that recording of me in ARMA2 come from? :doh: :haha:

[Aktungbby]

In it's defense I don't think very many war movies have been much more than entertainment and bend history as needed for the screen play.

INDEED! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065938/trivia (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065938/trivia) COME ON! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1eFePf6mWM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1eFePf6mWM) Donald Sutherland stole this flick! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IatwoA00E0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IatwoA00E0) :03:

[Betonov]

Ha, Kelly's Heroes was filmed in Yugoslavia :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Kelly's Heroes is srs bsns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZOyckUkVLQ

[Rhodes]

Kelly's Heroes is srs bsns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZOyckUkVLQ
:huh: wha ta???

[Oberon]

:huh: wha ta???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_und_Panzer

http://www.recaption.com/uploads/192354f21d34f0a82f.jpg

[vienna]

What, wait... you mean Hollywood films aren't accurate? You mean John Wayne did not win WW2 singlehandedly? Next you'll say "Star Wars" isn't real...


<O>

[Cybermat47]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_und_Panzer


:har: stuff like that is why I love Japan.

[Dread Knot]

What, wait... you mean Hollywood films aren't accurate? You mean John Wayne did not win WW2 singlehandedly? Next you'll say "Star Wars" isn't real...


<O>

Thanks to Hollywood and Abe Lincoln, America will be Forever Free of the Undead.

http://cdn.hitfix.com/photos/1086664/Honest-Abe-wields-an-axe-in-first-look-at-Abraham-Lincoln-Vampire-Hunter_gallery_primary.jpg

[Buddahaid]

Thanks to Hollywood and Abe Lincoln, America will be Forever Free of the Undead.

http://cdn.hitfix.com/photos/1086664/Honest-Abe-wields-an-axe-in-first-look-at-Abraham-Lincoln-Vampire-Hunter_gallery_primary.jpg

No it won't. The Republican Party will go on!

[Dread Knot]

No it won't. The Republican Party will go on!

Damn that Booth.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/14/1425c7399327618d233a9228eb10cfe4ff1073d36174c1b362 b95c4d5783de01.jpg

[vienna]

No it won't. The Republican Party will go on!

Coming soon to a theater near you:


https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7389/10107113874_a55990f02e.jpg



<O>

[Tango589]

and they have fightscenes involving tractors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QZ8o25u3Xo

:D
Cool, reminds me of 70's martial arts films!:rock:

[Rhodes]

Yep, Japan, why do I am still surprised...:woot:

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

It's sad but it's typical Holly-Whatever-You-Call-Them style these days. My barber asked me about if I was going to see it or not and I said " Probably not because Hollywood's problem is even if it's based on a true story that gives them "artistic license" to find one part of the whole story and then blow it all out of proportion and get everything wrong." And that's still how I feel about it, I've read books that have better plots then most Hollywood movies in the past ten years have with extremely few exceptions.

[August]

Lots of judgement here but not one of you have actually seen the movie. Maybe you all are right but I'll wait to see the movie and judge for myself.

[Feuer Frei!]

Lots of judgment, yep.
Haven't seen it but seen enough of the plot summary and the plot to suggest i would be watching some kind of fantasy movie.

Why not make a movie about a handful of farmers fighting 300 Spartans or Roman Legions and see what happens?
Providing of course it comes out of that Fantasy land called Hollywood.

But then that wouldn't sell would it, since you know, it doesn't have bad Germans in it. :haha:

If you are going to create this kind of tripe at least make it half believable.

In before: yea but there were feats of heroism on both sides where combatants who were vastly outnumbered scored some victories.

[Cybermat47]

Why not make a movie about a handful of farmers fighting 300 Spartans...

Ooh, a movie about one of the Helot revolts might have potential!

[Feuer Frei!]

Ooh, a movie about one of the Helot revolts might have potential!

Gerard Butler and his entourage protecting the narrow pass from an onslaught of 10 farmers with......pitch forks and crude spears??

You sure? :haha:

[August]

Why not make a movie about a handful of farmers fighting 300 Spartans or Roman Legions

I don't get the parallel. The farmers in this instance won the war even armed with Sherman pitchforks.

[Cybermat47]

Gerard Butler and his entourage protecting the narrow pass from an onslaught of 10 farmers with......pitch forks and crude spears??

You sure? :haha:


:haha: I think they'd have to make it more like Spartacus.

[Betonov]

But, what do we call Hollywood when it does something right, like Band of Brothers :hmmm:

[Betonov]

I don't get the parallel. The farmers in this instance won the war even armed with Sherman pitchforks.

But they also had P-51 and P-47 arrows and the Spartans lost all their arrows due to Spitfire arrows and had no arrow support.
Plus B-19 and Lancaster catapults destroyed their homefront while the farmers simply brought their supply from the other side of the Aegean sea

[Sailor Steve]

But, what do we call Hollywood when it does something right, like Band of Brothers :hmmm:
We say it wasn't Hollywood, because, you know, Hollywood never makes anything good.

[Jimbuna]

But, what do we call Hollywood when it does something right, like Band of Brothers :hmmm:

Walt Disney :)

[August]

But they also had P-51 and P-47 arrows and the Spartans lost all their arrows due to Spitfire arrows and had no arrow support.
Plus B-19 and Lancaster catapults destroyed their homefront while the farmers simply brought their supply from the other side of the Aegean sea

Well the Spartans also had Tiger tanks and fighter jets and ballistic missiles and a whole bunch of other highly advanced weaponry, a highly experienced and professional army and the farmers supply had to come across, not a mere sea, but an entire ocean infested by u-boat killers. Long supply lines are a handicap, not an advantage.

Besides i've seen no proof this Fury movie is anything but the story about the camaraderie of a single tank crew. People here are assuming it singlehandedly defeats the entire nazi war machine but i've seen no evidence the plot is anything like that.

[Dowly]

Why is it that movies made in modern day about WWII are critisised for their inaccuracies, when stuff like "Eagles Has Landed" are considered a classic?

What's the difference?

Not saying it's a bad or good movie, havent seen it, but maybe we should before we say 'yay' or 'nay'.

At least we get to see a real Tiger this time (and Sherman).

[Oberon]

How often did Sherman tanks go on 'Deadly missions behind enemy lines' though? :hmmm:

Besides, it's written and directed by the same guy who did U-571 and The Fast and the Furious, I'm not expecting much. :haha:

[Dread Knot]

How often did Sherman tanks go on 'Deadly missions behind enemy lines' though? :hmmm:

The closest instance I can think of was Task Force Baum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Baum

And it was a complete debacle. :dead:

The result of the mission was a complete failure; of the roughly 300 men of the task force, 32 were killed in action during the raid and only 35 made it back to Allied-controlled territory, with the remainder being taken prisoner. All of the 57 tanks , jeeps, and other vehicles were lost.

[Dowly]

How often did Sherman tanks go on 'Deadly missions behind enemy lines' though? :hmmm:

That's my point. Does it have to be historically accurate? Saving Private Ryan wasnt, but I think most of us here liked it.

Geez, it's a movie, not a Disc-.. Histor-... well.. documentary.

[Oberon]

The closest instance I can think of was Task Force Baum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Baum

And it was a complete debacle. :dead:

Now why didn't they make a film of that? (presuming that this isn't).
It's got good drama potential, character building, and shows some of the futility of war, even in the name of a good cause.
And before someone says that it wouldn't make a good film because it was a defeat, I shall point out 'A Bridge too far'.

Still, we'll see...films can surprise, but we'll see. :hmmm:

[Dowly]

And before someone says that it wouldn't make a good film because it was a defeat, I shall point out 'A Bridge too far'.

So very good, seen it maybe 6-7 times. Almost a perfect warmovie. :up:
(Better than that silly The Longest Day)

[Dread Knot]

Now why didn't they make a film of that? (presuming that this isn't).
It's got good drama potential, character building, and shows some of the futility of war, even in the name of a good cause.
And before someone says that it wouldn't make a good film because it was a defeat, I shall point out 'A Bridge too far'.

Still, we'll see...films can surprise, but we'll see. :hmmm:

While A Bridge Too Far is highly regarded today, it was something of a box office failure at the time (1977) The main complaint I recall back then was too many characters, cameos and plotlines to follow. The anti-climatic ending left people flat too.

So, Hollywood probably took it's cue. Of course being released the same year as Star Wars didn't help either.

[Oberon]

(Better than that silly The Longest Day)

I predict that HunterICXs face is going to be:

http://i.imgur.com/u3bWH5l.jpg?1

While A Bridge Too Far is highly regarded today, it was something of a box office failure at the time (1977) The main complaint I recall back then was too many characters, cameos and plotlines to follow. The anti-climatic ending left people flat too.

So, Hollywood probably took it's cue. Of course being released the same year as Star Wars didn't help either.

Aye, a pity really as it is a damn good film. More should be done to remember our mistakes, otherwise we never learn from them. :yep:

[Dowly]

I predict that HunterICXs face is going to be:You are a cruel man. :hmph:

[Dread Knot]

Aye, a pity really as it is a damn good film. More should be done to remember our mistakes, otherwise we never learn from them. :yep:

Oh, I don't think Hollywood has completely abandoned military mistakes as movie fare. But it's generally reserved for wars or interventions that were failures; Bighorn, Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Black Hawk Down, etc.

[Betonov]

Saving private Ryan does not glorify war, it shows it as it is.
These other movies glorify it. That's why they come out unrealistic, cheesy and more like a recruitment ad.

[Subnuts]

I was actually sorta interested in seeing this movie until I found out it was by directed by the same guy who wrote U-571.

In which case, screw this noise.

[HunterICX]

That's my point. Does it have to be historically accurate? Saving Private Ryan wasnt, but I think most of us here liked it.

Geez, it's a movie, not a Disc-.. Histor-... well.. documentary.

I hated Saving Private Ryan for it's unrealisitc stereotypical potrayal of both sides and not really being sublte about it.

So very good, seen it maybe 6-7 times. Almost a perfect warmovie. :up:
(Better than that silly The Longest Day)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz5ODQCueP8

[Skybird]

Shermans were infamous for being easy prey to German armor.

Who could forget that order the American high command issued and that was valid for some time that American Sherman tanks should not engage German tanks as long as they would not have a numerical 7:1 superiority?! :D

[Skybird]

Regarding Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers was the natural and recommended evolution of SPR. Superb production, absolutely excellent.

However, while all in all BoB was far better, for the opening sequence of SPR, the storm of the beaches, you cannot give enough credit to Spielberg's masterful movie craftsmanship.

[Oberon]

We just put a bigger gun on it.

Still exploded just as well though... :/\\!! And it periodically set fire to the surrounding vegetation when it fired... :oops:

The Firefly tank is an ordinary Sherman but, in order to accommodate the immense breech of the 17-pounder and to store its massive shells, the co-driver has been eliminated and his little den has been used as storage space. ... The flash is so brilliant that both gunner and commander need to blink at the moment of firing. Otherwise they will be blinded for so long that they will not see the shot hit the target. The muzzle flash spurts out so much flame that, after a shot or two, the hedge or undergrowth in front of the tank is likely to start burning. When moving, the gun's overlap in front or, if traversed, to the side is so long that driver, gunner and commander have to be constantly alert to avoid wrapping the barrel around some apparently distant tree, defenceless lamp-post or inoffensive house.

[Oberon]

Regarding Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers was the natural and recommended evolution of SPR. Superb production, absolutely excellent.

However, while all in all BoB was far better, for the opening sequence of SPR, the storm of the beaches, you cannot give enough credit to Spielberg's masterful movie craftsmanship.

When it comes to actual cinematics, SPR is top notch, but it does fall into tropes when it comes to the actual film itself.
BOB on the other hand was all over a superior article, in pacing (helped that it was a series rather than a film), in characters and in the narrative.
I mean, compare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb0h9JcBPlo

to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAlLYy5fHL0

[Stealhead]

Oh, I don't think Hollywood has completely abandoned military mistakes as movie fare. But it's generally reserved for wars or interventions that were failures; Bighorn, Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Black Hawk Down, etc.


I do not expect Hollywood to educate a person on history I expect them to entertain.:yep:

Granted a film or show may spark interest but they only provide trival facts in most cases. In the US military acadmies as well ROTC they instructed on battles/wars that were failures. Or a book can be read idealy several on a subject this where true knowledge should be aquired. My "man cave" (to use this silly parlance) basically is a room filled mostly with military history books.

On the flip side I think history buffs can be too picky. Any main stream film has to be appealing to a large audience.

[August]

I was actually sorta interested in seeing this movie until I found out it was by directed by the same guy who wrote U-571.

Well just remember that a director doesn't write the story.

[HunterICX]

Well just remember that a director doesn't write the story.

Well he actually does this time, in Fury's case he written it and directed it.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Why is it that movies made in modern day about WWII are critisised for their inaccuracies, when stuff like "Eagles Has Landed" are considered a classic?

What's the difference?

I think the difference here is that "The Eagle Has Landed" is based off of a novel by Jack Higgins so it's already is "historically inaccurate" in a way, whereas "Fury" is supposed to be based off a true story and Hollywood manages to get the historical aspects wrong. If I do decide to see "Fury" it's going to be after some reviews are out.

[Sailor Steve]

However, while all in all BoB was far better, for the opening sequence of SPR, the storm of the beaches, you cannot give enough credit to Spielberg's masterful movie craftsmanship.
And I had exactly the opposite reaction. In that opening D-Day sequence I saw nothing but a string of cliches. When the helmet saved the soldier's life and he took it off to look at it, it was obvious what was coming next. When the medics were trying to save the soldier on the beach, it was obvious what would happen next. Ruined the whole movie for me.

[nikimcbee]

Lots of judgement here but not one of you have actually seen the movie. Maybe you all are right but I'll wait to see the movie and judge for myself.
Done.

That's my point. Does it have to be historically accurate? Saving Private Ryan wasnt, but I think most of us here liked it.

Geez, it's a movie, not a Disc-.. Histor-... well.. documentary.

I went for the real tanks. The only thing I didn't really like about it was the fact the tiger didn't get much face time.:down: The plot didn't go how I though it would go and the ending didn't happen how I thought it would.:hmmm: There were aspects of the film I didn't like, but it wasn't a deal breaker for me.

I think the difference here is that "The Eagle Has Landed" is based off of a novel by Jack Higgins so it's already is "historically inaccurate" in a way, whereas "Fury" is supposed to be based off a true story and Hollywood manages to get the historical aspects wrong. If I do decide to see "Fury" it's going to be after some reviews are out.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fury_2015/?adid=home_list1a

WoT is milking this for all it's worth. I wonder how many "Fury" tank packages they sold today?

[August]

Well he actually does this time, in Fury's case he written it and directed it.

Well then that is certainly different. :yep:

[Jimbuna]

Done.



I went for the real tanks. The only thing I didn't really like about it was the fact the tiger didn't get much face time.:down: The plot didn't go how I though it would go and the ending didn't happen how I thought it would.:hmmm: There were aspects of the film I didn't like, but it wasn't a deal breaker for me.





On the contrary....I wasn't at all surprised with the ending and in some way it reminded me of the SPR ending.

[donna52522]

Everyone and their brother are driving Fury's around in World of tanks...They are basically a Sherman Easy8 but with all the upgrades and benefits of a Premium. My Sherman Jumbo has been doing well against them.

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/17/fury-special/

[August]

On the contrary....I wasn't at all surprised with the ending and in some way it reminded me of the SPR ending.


Do you mean the end of the battle or the "present day" scene in the graveyard with the old Pvt Ryan and his family?

[Peter Cremer]

Like all the other movies that come out, I will wait until 'Fury' is $10 for a Blu-ray dvd. It ain't that I'm cheap, it's just that Social Security doesn't go very far.

[Jimbuna]

Do you mean the end of the battle or the "present day" scene in the graveyard with the old Pvt Ryan and his family?

The former but don't want to spoil it for others :03:

[Oberon]

Some of the chaps at simhq who have seen it seem quietly impressed. It's supposed to be quite grim and gritty, the Tiger battle is relatively short but the ending bit is alledgedly a bit un-necessary.

See for yourselves (spoilers, naturally):
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4024011/Anyone_see_Fury_yet?#Post4024011

[August]

Like all the other movies that come out, I will wait until 'Fury' is $10 for a Blu-ray dvd. It ain't that I'm cheap, it's just that Social Security doesn't go very far.


A wise move at any income! :salute:

[Eichhörnchen]

Thanks, guys. If it did nothing else then at least this thread gave me another idea for my Animal Film Club ('spect you can guess what it is)

[Feuer Frei!]

Glad some enjoyed this fantasy propagandist movie.

If you're going to make a movie about a specific moment in a specific theater of war at least have the decency and 2 brain cells to make it a little believable.

A company of SS marching down the street in April 1945 singing?:haha:
Running continuously and blindly into the tank's machine gun fire?:haha:
Carrying panzer fausts and not using them against a immobilized and lightly-armored Sherman and blowing the crap out of it?:haha:

There's more...

Cool. Let Bollywood (someone said why do i call Hollywood Bollywood?) churn out another tripe fest and assume and present the Germans as stupid and dumb and that the US Army was invincible and represented as demi gods and hell, if they were armed with just pitch forks they could have won this particular battle in this theater of war (that's the Parallel, August) then yep it's Bollywood.
Because Bollywood movies are crap, and the majority of Hollywood movies about ww2 are crap.

So, Bollywood, keep em coming, keep the tired and old "let's kill some Germans and make em look like idiots and the Allied force demi-gods" tripe flowing, i'm sure the sheep out there will line your pockets with more Greenbacks.

Someone else said but this isn't a doko it's meant for entertainment.

Shallow argument, but i can see 'entertainment' is subjective.
If i want entertainment i watch a Arnie film or a Clint Eastwood western.

If i'm presented with a ww2 movie (albeit) fiction, like this garbage, then i expect some balance, some believability, some form of realism, not far-fetched and incredibly far-out scenarios which no Soldier would have enacted in the real deal.
Don't treat me, the movie-goer with absolute disrespect and expect me to believe half the stuff that you directed in this, and other ww2 movies.


But, that's Bollywood for you.
And the masses lap it up.
Because you know, it's entertainment.

[Oberon]

Eh, Bollywood ain't that bad, they put out pretty decent flicks here and there.

[Buddahaid]

Glad some enjoyed this fantasy propagandist movie.

If you're going to make a movie about a specific moment in a specific theater of war at least have the decency and 2 brain cells to make it a little believable.

A company of SS marching down the street in April 1945 singing?:haha:
Running continuously and blindly into the tank's machine gun fire?:haha:
Carrying panzer fausts and not using them against a immobilized and lightly-armored Sherman and blowing the crap out of it?:haha:

There's more...

Cool. Let Bollywood (someone said why do i call Hollywood Bollywood?) churn out another tripe fest and assume and present the Germans as stupid and dumb and that the US Army was invincible and represented as demi gods and hell, if they were armed with just pitch forks they could have won this particular battle in this theater of war (that's the Parallel, August) then yep it's Bollywood.
Because Bollywood movies are crap, and the majority of Hollywood movies about ww2 are crap.

So, Bollywood, keep em coming, keep the tired and old "let's kill some Germans and make em look like idiots and the Allied force demi-gods" tripe flowing, i'm sure the sheep out there will line your pockets with more Greenbacks.

Someone else said but this isn't a doko it's meant for entertainment.

Shallow argument, but i can see 'entertainment' is subjective.
If i want entertainment i watch a Arnie film or a Clint Eastwood western.

If i'm presented with a ww2 movie (albeit) fiction, like this garbage, then i expect some balance, some believability, some form of realism, not far-fetched and incredibly far-out scenarios which no Soldier would have enacted in the real deal.
Don't treat me, the movie-goer with absolute disrespect and expect me to believe half the stuff that you directed in this, and other ww2 movies.


But, that's Bollywood for you.
And the masses lap it up.
Because you know, it's entertainment.

OK you don't like it so don't go see it. I don't understand why the angry rant.

[Schroeder]

OK you don't like it so don't go see it. I don't understand why the angry rant.
Because as a German he's pissed that we get frequently portrayed in Hollywood movies as stupid idiots who can get wiped out by an army of kindergarten kids.
And I would actually tend to agree it starts to piss me off as well.

[u crank]

Because as a German he's pissed that we get frequently portrayed in Hollywood movies as stupid idiots who can get wiped out by an army of kindergarten kids.
And I would actually tend to agree it starts to piss me off as well.

That would be a very small price to pay for losing a war. Get in line.....right behind the natives of North America.

[Oberon]

That would be a very small price to pay for losing a war. Get in line.....right behind the natives of North America.

We're frequently portrayed as being invisible in Hollywood war films. :yeah:

[Buddahaid]

Because as a German he's pissed that we get frequently portrayed in Hollywood movies as stupid idiots who can get wiped out by an army of kindergarten kids.
And I would actually tend to agree it starts to piss me off as well.

I can understand that. It seems the solution would be for the German film industry to make films with the opposite bias then.

[Oberon]

I can understand that. It seems the solution would be for the German film industry to make films with the opposite bias then.

If they did that though people would probably cry:

http://www.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Bloodrayne-3-Pic-1.jpg

Wait...no...sorry...wrong one...

I meant:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1990-1002-500,_Besuch_von_Hitler_und_Goebbels_bei_der_UFA_re touched.jpg

[Oberon]

And to be fair, the German film industry does make very good war films:

http://www.durchblick-filme.de/bruecke/bilder/Screenshots/Bruecke_AB15_B.jpg

http://www.teenidols4you.com/blink/Actors/donevan_gunia/dgu-der_untergang_05.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/siochembio/movies%201980s/dasbootaboveboardfirelight_zps8e7b50d9.png

http://s3.flog.pl/media/foto/3819462_stalingrad--1993.jpg


I'll tell you one thing that I do like about German made war films, and I think this is true for just about all of them...they are some of the most intense, dramatic and brutal depictions of war out there, there is no glorification, no flag waving, no message other than 'War is hell'.
Some English made films do capture that a bit, but German made ones tend to hit the nail on the head better, IMHO anyway.

[Schroeder]

I can understand that. It seems the solution would be for the German film industry to make films with the opposite bias then.
The solution would be to stop making insulting movies on all sides. To give insult back isn't a solution in my opinion.

[Betonov]

I'll tell you one thing that I do like about German made war films, and I think this is true for just about all of them...they are some of the most intense, dramatic and brutal depictions of war out there, there is no glorification, no flag waving, no message other than 'War is hell'.
Some English made films do capture that a bit, but German made ones tend to hit the nail on the head better, IMHO anyway.


They have to.
Germans need to be reminded that war is hell or else we're going to see Leopard II's rolling into France again

[Oberon]

They have to.
Germans need to be reminded that war is hell or else we're going to see Leopard II's rolling into France again

Haven't you read Skybirds posts? They probably don't have enough working tanks to invade even France!

[Buddahaid]

Sometimes it's not just Hollywood but the Armed forces that interfere if your movie or TV show relies on support for extras and vehicles.

I am reminded of the TV shows Combat and The Rat Patrol though. German MG nests couldn't hurt anyone but a guest star with 20,000 rounds. :o

[Betonov]

Haven't you read Skybirds posts? They probably don't have enough working tanks to invade even France!

Those tanks were made during the VW Golf II era, they should have been operational even when left for 20 years in a swamp

[Oberon]

Those tanks were made during the VW Golf II era, they should have been operational even when left for 20 years in a swamp

:hmmm: Well...if the mechanical parts work then usually it's lack of fuel.

They make good pillboxes though. :yeah:

[August]

Because as a German he's pissed that we get frequently portrayed in Hollywood movies as stupid idiots who can get wiped out by an army of kindergarten kids.
And I would actually tend to agree it starts to piss me off as well.

And yet Hogans Heroes is popular in Germany so I understand. :)

http://www.nndb.com/tv/719/000044587/hogan-trio-sized.jpg

[Catfish]

The solution would be to stop making insulting movies on all sides. To give insult back isn't a solution in my opinion.

It is interesting to read this from a german, after 69 years of allied brainwashing and 'reeducation'. You are supposed to still be kissing their a$$.
Take Merkel, as an example, when it comes to Nato, and Putin.
:-?

[Schroeder]

And yet Hogans Heroes is popular in Germany so I understand. :)

http://www.nndb.com/tv/719/000044587/hogan-trio-sized.jpg
Hogan's Heroes was done in the 60ies and is so over the top that it is actually funny (I liked to watch it myself actually). It doesn't really pretend that things were like that and you never see them killing truck loads of idiots who can't fight.

[nikimcbee]

Because as a German he's pissed that we get frequently portrayed in Hollywood movies as stupid idiots who can get wiped out by an army of kindergarten kids.
And I would actually tend to agree it starts to piss me off as well.

You know what they say; Lucky in football, unlucky in 20th century warfare.:O:

[nikimcbee]

And yet Hogans Heroes is popular in Germany so I understand. :)



http://www.mishalov.com/images/klemperer.jpg
August!!!!

[Cybermat47]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/siochembio/movies%201980s/dasbootaboveboardfirelight_zps8e7b50d9.png


What film is this from?

[August]

What film is this from?

Das Boot

[Feuer Frei!]

I can understand that. It seems the solution would be for the German film industry to make films with the opposite bias then.

Well, that ain't really gonna happen.
There are ww2 movies from a German perspective, granted, but, the muzzle is still tightly around the German face so to speak.
I'm not advocating glorifying Nazism. Far from it.

My point is, if you are going to make a war film, with the subject matter being a particular theater of war and a moment or snapshot of that theater, if you will, then at least make it a little realistic and believable.

Don't pander to the anti-german feeling that a lot of countries still have after all these years and make this into a propaganda film.
Or worse still, slap a invisible yet all-too-clear title on it: "get ready to kill more Germans".

I'm expecting too much of course, but hey, one can dream, right?

Germans and Nazis are just about all that Hollywood has left to kill.

The days of cowboys killing Indians is long gone.

[MH]

Just another rambo movie…
What is the big issue.
Just because it has sherman and tiger in it doesn't mean the movie is supposed to be educational.

[Jimbuna]

And to be fair, the German film industry does make very good war films:



http://s3.flog.pl/media/foto/3819462_stalingrad--1993.jpg


I'll tell you one thing that I do like about German made war films, and I think this is true for just about all of them...they are some of the most intense, dramatic and brutal depictions of war out there, there is no glorification, no flag waving, no message other than 'War is hell'.
Some English made films do capture that a bit, but German made ones tend to hit the nail on the head better, IMHO anyway.

The above is from the 2013 version of Stalingrad which was Russian made.

The picture below is the German made version of 1993 which was also an excellent movie.

http://s30.postimg.org/z9d8eaobl/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Cross of Iron was a joint Anglo-German production between EMI Films and ITC Entertainment of London and Rapid Films GmbH from Munich but another great film nonetheless.

http://s11.postimg.org/8ft16xt4z/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

[Safe-Keeper]

Just watched the trailer on YouTube...

God, that was a lot of clichés in one trailer.

[Safe-Keeper]

I love German war depictions. They tend to focus more on plot and characters, and the gritty realities of war, than on glory and explosions and big fight scenes. I feel they have this in common with Scandinavian projects, both video games (World in Conflict) and films (Max Manus, for example).

There is room for both action films and more serious films, of course, but I by far prefer substance over flash. Also, when it comes down to it, war is terrifying, bloody, unjust and horrible both to civilians and military men, and I prefer films and games that explore these aspects more.

It's all fun and games until the infantry your tanks are mowing down turns out to be innocent civilians.

edit:
Germans and Nazis are just about all that Hollywood has left to kill.Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation fame has repeatedly made the point that the US probably long for the days when America really was "saving the world". A massive war to take down Germany and its massive, oppressive empire that culminated in the Holocaust is different from assymetrical warfare against relatively unknown third-world countries that much of the populace probably couldn't even find on a map, with said populace split over whether the armed forces should even be there in the first place.

[Dowly]

The above is from the 2013 version of Stalingrad which was Russian made.

The photo is definitely from the 1993 version.

[Catfish]

Whoever thinks the military would search for a single private to save him during a war, just because his brothers have already fallen, to spare the mother further grief – isn't there anyone who thinks the director has somehow misunderstood what the military is about and how it acts ?

And even IF this happened (which i sincerely doubt), in how far is this representative for WW2 ?
Good old human military eh?
If it is not a fraud, it sure did not happen like that, the way war is being shown here has nothing to do with reality.

"Saving Private Ryan" my a$$.
Maybe if it had been General McArthur.

[Safe-Keeper]

"Fraud"? Has anyone claimed SPR was based on a true story?

[Feuer Frei!]

"Fraud"? Has anyone claimed SPR was based on a true story?

Loosely based on the Niland Brother's experiences.

Inspired by, etc etc blah blah blah.

And Fraud comes in many forms. Not just the way you may think it does.

Representing something based on a fact, whether loosely or entirely and twisting it to gain notoriety or fame or increase of monetary gains, is fraudulent.
Plenty of that going on in Hollyw.....
Steven isn't the first and won't be the last to put crap in movies.

[Sailor Steve]

Whoever thinks the military would search for a single private to save him during a war, just because his brothers have already fallen, to spare the mother further grief – isn't there anyone who thinks the director has somehow misunderstood what the military is about and how it acts ?
Actually my late friend Rocky liked the movie because his dad had served on several extraction teams, as they called them. Also one of his uncles ran away and signed up at age fourteen. An extraction team found his unit and brought him home. Of course the reality was that most of them didn't go through all the crap the team in the movie did. It was "find the unit, find the soldier, bring him back to HQ so they can process him and send him home".

[August]

Whoever thinks the military would search for a single private to save him during a war

Maybe not your military but as Steve points out above our military would and did.

[Oberon]

The photo is definitely from the 1993 version.

I did specifically google for it. :yep:

[Aktungbby]

Actually my late friend Rocky liked the movie because his dad had served on several extraction teams, as they called them. Also one of his uncles ran away and signed up at age fourteen. An extraction team found his unit and brought him home. Of course the reality was that most of them didn't go through all the crap the team in the movie did. It was "find the unit, find the soldier, bring him back to HQ so they can process him and send him home".

Came across this in looking up extractions. Talk about aggravating! http://www.propublica.org/article/missing-in-action-us-military-slow-to-identify-service-members (http://www.propublica.org/article/missing-in-action-us-military-slow-to-identify-service-members) Tried to bear in mind there are multiple views to the emotional trauma involved but it seems a bit stodgy on the military's part.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I remember seeing that Pitt's Sherman had a 76mm main armament. With Hyper Velocity Armor Piercing shells, I think it could take out many different kinds of armor. I saw that the original poster was not pleased about this.

[Feuer Frei!]

I remember seeing that Pitt's Sherman had a 76mm main armament. With Hyper Velocity Armor Piercing shells, I think it could take out many different kinds of armor. I saw that the original poster was not pleased about this.

It was an improvement over the 75mm, granted.
But to assume and allege that the new m93 was the be all end all to successfully engaging and defeating Tiger and Panther Tanks, assuming that unless you faced the rear of the Tiger dead on and at close-ish range then this is just not so.

Also, limited production meant that the m93 was mainly fitted out on tank destroyers.
Not all or even the majority of Shermans had them.


Despite the upgrades, however, the armament of Sherman tanks were still far inferior to the Panther tanks' 75-millimeter gun, only effective against Panther tanks at close range, for example. I won't even mention the Tiger. Successfull at 500 mtrs, 122mm 76mm penetration glacis against Tiger tanks.
Which was adequate, but not optimal, fighting a Tiger at 500 mtrs. And not possible most times.
If you can get that close. Before being obliterated by the Tiger's 88m. 500mtrs is close range, by tank standards. Very close. Certainly compared to the Tiger's history of distance-related stats in combat. Optimal and proven at distances greater than 1300 mtrs and reports of kills at greater than 4klmtrs !

The Firefly's introduction (17 pdr) is where we would have started seeing some balanced and realistic combat against both the Tiger and the Panther.

It wasn't that i wasn't pleased about a Sherman engaging a Tiger (or 3).


If that was the case, i wouldn't have posted this thread.

I'll give you a hint as to 1 reason why i'm displeased.

Why is it that in the majority of Theaters of WW2 (certainly in the middle and latter stages of ww2) the Germans found themselves increasingly outnumbered by large ratios, yet in ww2 Bollywood movies they are represented as being in vast numbers, outnumbering the Allied force(s)?
In most cases?

Allied commanders thought it was acceptable to lose 4-5 of their own tanks in order to take out a Panther or Tiger by swarming them with superior numbers.

More garbage.

A study of US tank battles in Germany found that victory was generally ensured if allied tanks outnumbered their opponents 2.1:1.

These last points go towards the movie and how the battle was represented (amongst other things).


EDIT:

https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/image/tmb/pentests_717x835.jpg


Tiger vs Sherman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3slnEXOoSo

[ikalugin]

Not much happened on the eastern front? Heh.

About Stalingrad related movies - all 3 are stereotyped to suit their target groups, but German one is probably the best in terms of artistic portrayal of the war.

One of my favourite movies about GPW is "at dawn it is quiet here".

[Bilge_Rat]

It was an improvement over the 75mm, granted.
But to assume and allege that the new m93 was the be all end all to successfully engaging and defeating Tiger and Panther Tanks, assuming that unless you faced the rear of the Tiger dead on and at close-ish range then this is just not so.

Also, limited production meant that the m93 was mainly fitted out on tank destroyers.
Not all or even the majority of Shermans had them.


Despite the upgrades, however, the armament of Sherman tanks were still far inferior to the Panther tanks' 75-millimeter gun, only effective against Panther tanks at close range, for example. I won't even mention the Tiger. Successfull at 500 mtrs, 122mm 76mm penetration glacis against Tiger tanks.
Which was adequate, but not optimal, fighting a Tiger at 500 mtrs. And not possible most times.
If you can get that close. Before being obliterated by the Tiger's 88m. 500mtrs is close range, by tank standards. Very close. Certainly compared to the Tiger's history of distance-related stats in combat. Optimal and proven at distances greater than 1300 mtrs and reports of kills at greater than 4klmtrs !

The Firefly's introduction (17 pdr) is where we would have started seeing some balanced and realistic combat against both the Tiger and the Panther.

It wasn't that i wasn't pleased about a Sherman engaging a Tiger (or 3).


If that was the case, i wouldn't have posted this thread.

I'll give you a hint as to 1 reason why i'm displeased.

Why is it that in the majority of Theaters of WW2 (certainly in the middle and latter stages of ww2) the Germans found themselves increasingly outnumbered by large ratios, yet in ww2 Bollywood movies they are represented as being in vast numbers, outnumbering the Allied force(s)?
In most cases?

Allied commanders thought it was acceptable to lose 4-5 of their own tanks in order to take out a Panther or Tiger by swarming them with superior numbers.

More garbage.

A study of US tank battles in Germany found that victory was generally ensured if allied tanks outnumbered their opponents 2.1:1.

These last points go towards the movie and how the battle was represented (amongst other things).


EDIT:

https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/image/tmb/pentests_717x835.jpg


Tiger vs Sherman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3slnEXOoSo

That is not entirely accurate, by the time period in the film, i.e. april 1945, the standard Sherman coming off the production lines was the 76mm "Easy Eight". With HVAP shells, which were in adequate supply by that time, they could kill Tigers and Panthers at all angles at normal combat ranges, i.e 500 meters or less and farther out on the sides and rear.

I submit that there is an argument that yes, in practice it was the correct decision as well. The bottom line question is “What could the 17pr Sherman Firefly do that the 76mm M4 could not do at least as well, if not better?” The answer is basically nothing. Both tanks were more than capable of reliably dealing with Panzers, StuGs and Tigers from all angles and at reasonable ranges. Neither tank had much of a hope against King Tigers from the front, both had no difficulty from the side. As the tests at Isigny showed, neither could reliably penetrate the front of a Panther, except at close range. There was perhaps a narrow band from at closer range where 17pr had a more reasonable expectation of killing Panther, while the 76mm was being a bit optimistic (The short range band at maybe 400-500m where SVDS might still actually go in the direction you were aiming while 76mm was of questionable penetration), if you came around the corner and had to get a round off quickly enough that you didn't have time to aim for the turret. In pretty much every other factor of tanking, the 76mm M4 was the superior tank. It could engage targets more quickly, it could put more explosives on targets in a shorter amount of time, it was more accurate, it had safer ammunition

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly3/


500 meters was more or less a normal combat range on the western and italian front, where the terrain was more contricted, i.e. more hills, forests, urban. Very long range firefights, which was the Tigers strong point, was more a feature of the OstFront where you had a lot of treeless Steppe terrain, especially in the Ukraine.

p.s. - this may also be of interest, the "Chieftain's Hatch" view of "Fury". The guy who writes that column is a former U.S. tanker and they are all highly informative if you are interested in tanks.

The reality, however, was much different. The arrival of the 76mm gun greatly equalized the battle, giving Sherman a more than fighting chance. By the end of the war, the time of Fury’s setting, Sherman had one additional ace up its sleeve: The HVAP (High Velocity Armor Piercing) round. Primarily in response to the Panther problem, the US powers-that-were authorized the development of a “hot” tank-killing round. The projectile which would give Sherman (and most of the tank destroyers) a fair chance against Panther at moderate range could, and did, kill Tigers at over two kilometers. Both tanks could now kill each other at long range, except one tank was faster, more mobile, lighter, had a higher rate of fire, was more accurate, more likely to spot the enemy first due to proliferation of optics, had faster traverse, and had a stabilized gun. Oh, and it also had the advantages of better artillery and air support. It was no longer much of a contest and the roles had been reversed. Tiger crews now had justification to fear Shermans far more than a Sherman crew had to fear Tiger. Even the continued use of 75mm tanks was of little comfort to the Germans: By Autumn 1944, wherever there were 75mm M4s, there were probably also 76mm M4s

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/TCH_Fury_Sherman_Tiger/

[Dread Knot]

Frankly, it's always been my experience that Hollywood being the famous military experts that they are, and loving a good story as they do, would often exaggerate the immunity of German heavy tanks to make the historical American triumph seem that much more sweeter. Much the same way that Ceaser wrote kind things about the military prowess of Vercingetorix to make his own victory seem that much impressive among the masses. When you see the 1965 Battle of the Bulge movie (Telly Savalas, Charles Bronson, et al in M-24s Chaffees fighting US M48s dressed up in German livery) you are seeing a myth enacted. The film creates the false impression that large numbers of inferior American tanks sacrificed themselves against the heavy German Konigstigers and in the process lured the enemy off course which caused them to run out of gas. In reality, most were already stranded due to lack of fuel or blown bridges.

But don't get me started on that movie's numerous historical inaccuracies. There's only a million of them.

[Jimbuna]

I did specifically google for it. :yep:

Yeah Jamie....my mistook :oops:

[August]

Much the same way that Ceaser wrote kind things about the military prowess of Vercingetorix to make his own victory seem that much impressive among the masses.

Or the British glorification of Erwin Rommel, first to excuse his successes against them, then later when the tide of war had turned to raise morale for having beaten the great Desert Fox.

The way I see it no movie, no matter how "accurate" can be a realistic portrayal of war. Bill Mauldin (or maybe it was Ernie Pyle) once commented that to make a movie realistic the audience should have to endure random sniper fire while they watch it.

[Stealhead]

The closest I have seen is The Hornets Nest. But that is documantary filmed by a father/son team. They very nearly buy the farm a few times at one point an infantryman comments on how a .50 DhSK barely missed them then picks up one of the still warm slugs.

Another would be Restrepro another doc. Of course you get to watch from saftey though I recon you might choke on popcorn.

[Cybermat47]

Or the British glorification of Erwin Rommel, first to excuse his successes against them, then later when the tide of war had turned to raise morale for having beaten the great Desert Fox.

The way I see it no movie, no matter how "accurate" can be a realistic portrayal of war. Bill Mauldin (or maybe it was Ernie Pyle) once commented that to make a movie realistic the audience should have to endure random sniper fire while they watch it.

The closest I have seen is The Hornets Nest. But that is documantary filmed by a father/son team. They very nearly buy the farm a few times at one point an infantryman comments on how a .50 DhSK barely missed them then picks up one of the still warm slugs.

Another would be Restrepro another doc. Of course you get to watch from saftey though I recon you might choke on popcorn.



Part of me wants to experience war first hand, so I can understand what soldiers go through.


The other part of me wants to live.

[Oberon]

Part of me wants to experience war first hand, so I can understand what soldiers go through.


The other part of me wants to live.

I'd listen to the part of you that wants to live...it gets you through a lot of situations.

[Stealhead]

Not much happened on the eastern front? Heh.

About Stalingrad related movies - all 3 are stereotyped to suit their target groups, but German one is probably the best in terms of artistic portrayal of the war.

One of my favourite movies about GPW is "at dawn it is quiet here".
Is that film also known as The Dawns Here are Quiet? I have that in Russian with english subtitles. I also have Come and See again Russian language with english subs. I have to watch a film in its native language.

[Stealhead]

Part of me wants to experience war first hand, so I can understand what soldiers go through.


The other part of me wants to live.

You cant have one without the other. I thought you admired the Spartans. We are all going to die someday and you never know when your number is up. Some drunk driver might run you down next week but you wont know it.


You wont get to walk in the fields of Elysium. The best you can do is have empathy which Id say you seem to have it.

[ikalugin]

Is that film also known as The Dawns Here are Quiet? I have that in Russian with english subtitles. I also have Come and See again Russian language with english subs. I have to watch a film in its native language.
Yes, did you like it?

[nikimcbee]

Yes, did you like it?


Is that the Bondarchuk film?

[ikalugin]

Er, no, it was directed by this guy:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Rostotsky

[donna52522]

Frankly, it's always been my experience that Hollywood being the famous military experts that they are, and loving a good story as they do, would often exaggerate the immunity of German heavy tanks to make the historical American triumph seem that much more sweeter. Much the same way that Ceaser wrote kind things about the military prowess of Vercingetorix to make his own victory seem that much impressive among the masses. When you see the 1965 Battle of the Bulge movie (Telly Savalas, Charles Bronson, et al in M-24s Chaffees fighting US M48s dressed up in German livery) you are seeing a myth enacted. The film creates the false impression that large numbers of inferior American tanks sacrificed themselves against the heavy German Konigstigers and in the process lured the enemy off course which caused them to run out of gas. In reality, most were already stranded due to lack of fuel or blown bridges.

But don't get me started on that movie's numerous historical inaccuracies. There's only a million of them.

I have read that even when bridges were taken intact, the Tigers, I and II's, were too heavy to cross them, and had to pull off the road to let smaller tanks and infantry cross to make a bridgehead. Thus allowing engineers to either add support to the existing bridge or even build a new bridge next to it in order for the Tigers get across the river.

I had seen the movie The battle Of The Bulge, and the tank battle at the end confused me, it seems to be set in a desert type locale, I don't believe there is a desert in the Ardennes forest.

[Oberon]

I don't believe there is a desert in the Ardennes forest.

Global warming...

[Schroeder]

I have read that even when bridges were taken intact, the Tigers, I and II's, were too heavy to cross them, and had to pull off the road to let smaller tanks and infantry cross to make a bridgehead. Thus allowing engineers to either add support to the existing bridge or even build a new bridge next to it in order for the Tigers get across the river.

I had seen the movie The battle Of The Bulge, and the tank battle at the end confused me, it seems to be set in a desert type locale, I don't believe there is a desert in the Ardennes forest.
It was also very difficult to transport them by rail. The Tigers needed their tracks swapped out for narrower transport tracks to fit onto the wagons. Once they arrived the tracks had to be swapped back. There is a tank museum at Munster which has a Sherman and a King Tiger (unfortunately not a "normal" Tiger) and the difference in size is enormous and I fully believe that the Sherman was hard pressed to knock them out while being very vulnerable to their firepower.
Here is a (almost 20 years old) picture of me next to the King Tiger just to show how big it is (I'm average sized: 1,80m (~5ft 10'):
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/54/1012554/3732633339336538.jpg

[Dread Knot]

I had seen the movie The battle Of The Bulge, and the tank battle at the end confused me, it seems to be set in a desert type locale, I don't believe there is a desert in the Ardennes forest.

The movie was shot in the Guadarrama Mountains near Madrid in Spain, I believe. Most of the extras provided were Spanish recruits and so was the armor used. I'm not sure why they shot it there. Maybe Spain put in the best bid for using their equipment. It may have been shot in Europe, but a lot of the principal locations sure didn't resemble the Ardennes.

Other errors abound. The conflation of von der Heydte's paratroopers and Skorzeny's commandos. Colonel Hessler's weird halftrack-towed HQ caravan. German planners referring to mist and cloudy conditions negating the Allied air superiority, only to have most of the movie take place under blue skies and sunshine. Yeah, the movie is a hoot. So much so that former Allied Supreme Commander Eisenhower even came of retirement to denounce it.

Having the Germans defeated because the principle German commander (a mere colonel) got his column of tanks destroyed is silly. Having the entire Ardennes offensive come to a grinding halt by rolling drums of fuel at advancing tanks (while great cinema when I was a 10 year old) is laughable for an adult. But in the end it probably made money and that always was the principal objective.

[Rhodes]

Spain have a lot of tradition in films being shot there, due to the production costs. It was more cheap. Look at very european (western spaghetti) western movies!

[Dread Knot]

Spain have a lot of tradition in films being shot there, due to the production costs. It was more cheap. Look at very european (western spaghetti) western movies!

Not to mention the fantasy genre. The original Conan the Barbarian was filmed in Spain back in 1981. But then Battle of the Bulge is kinda fantasy too. :D

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg6/shoveler_shooter/conansnakepalace_zps34b0de7e.jpg

[nikimcbee]

Is that the Bondarchuk film?

Er, no, it was directed by this guy:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Rostotsky
I was thinking of this film.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073488/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_7

[ikalugin]

Different film, though I really do like the human tragedy of the Dawns are Quiet here.

[Eichhörnchen]

I also have Come and See again Russian language with english subs. I have to watch a film in its native language.

Come And See: brilliant film. I also prefer to watch with the original soundtrack.

Watch the dubbed version of Troll Hunter (not a war film, sure) and then the original: you'll see what I mean...

[Dowly]

Unsere mütter, unsere väter was pretty good. :yep:

[Eichhörnchen]

Would that be a German Film about the Russo-Finnish war?

I liked the film Die Brucke (The Bridge). I have both the 1960s version and the remake on DVD.

[ikalugin]

Would that be a German Film about the Russo-Finnish war?

I liked the film Die Brucke (The Bridge). I have both the 1960s version and the remake on DVD.
No, it is yet another WW2 eastern front series.

[Stealhead]

Yes, did you like it?

Yes it is a pretty good film.

[Dowly]

Would that be a German Film about the Russo-Finnish war?
Nope, but speaking of the Russo-Finnish War, Talvisota is a good finnish movie about the Winter War. :yep:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVE5XBYESuQ

[Catfish]

Anyone saw "White Tiger" yet ? :hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

This was posted on subsim facebook.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/22/put-a-tiger-in-your-tank-but-not-if-you-want-to-win-the-war/

:hmmm:

[Betonov]

Anyone saw "White Tiger" yet ? :hmmm:

Me.
Good movie but lacked the focus on the white tiger itself.
Expected a good chase after it, following a trail of destroyed Soviet tanks until the showdown.

[kranz]

Unsere mütter, unsere väter was pretty good. :yep:
depicting Polish partisans (the AK) as Jew-hunters. :yep:

[August]

This was posted on subsim facebook.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/22/put-a-tiger-in-your-tank-but-not-if-you-want-to-win-the-war/

:hmmm:


Interesting.

...when his squad of four Shermans faces off against a “goddamn Tiger” deep inside Germany late in the war.

According to the haters in this thread this movie was supposed to be about a lone Sherman crew singlehandedly taking on the entire Wehrmacht and defeating them in a blaze of American butt kicking superiority over the silly goose stepping (and apparently musical) Germans.

:hmmm:

[Dowly]

Who are these "haters" you speak of August?

[Betonov]

This was posted on subsim facebook.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/22/put-a-tiger-in-your-tank-but-not-if-you-want-to-win-the-war/

:hmmm:

Good article.
Forgot to mention the allied air superiority. Tank is weakest at the top and a good fighter pilot could have taken a tiger out in a single pass

[Feuer Frei!]

Who are these "haters" you speak of August?

I'll give you a hint.

It starts with O, and ends with P.

Good article? Really?
So the article is news to people is it?
Riiight.



regurgitating stuff again what we all know.
That towards the end of the war the Germans were vastly outnumbered, Tiger tanks were attacked by air force, and so on and so on.
So what? The movie is still crap, still propagandist garbage from those clowns at Hollywood and the supporters in this thread of this movie should buy themselves a copy once it gets pressed to dvd because, well, if you ever need your fix of American ww2 propaganda, you can watch it over and over and over and.....
and feel good about it.

Now, if on the other hand we get a movie from the clowns about some Germans killing platoons of Americans, hell, count me in.

Yeah, i'm dreaming now aren't i. Because we all know that is never going to happen.

Because we can't let the big bad Germans forget what occurred btw 1939 and 1945.

What a f'in joke.

Napoleon was right.

Easy to jump on the bandwagon when some article which is just regurtitated from history books is posted somewhere and you all bleat: wow, what an eye-opener, that is cool, yeah, wow....etc etc.

Carry on.

Typical.

[Dowly]

You never quite answered to the question. :yep:

[Betonov]

Good article? Really?
So the article is news to people is it?
Riiight.

Yep. Despite me being a member of a military equipment forum (sort of) and a WW2 game brought me here, I'm surprisingly clueless about about that conflict. Half the bits about WW2 you throw at me will be new.
I know how a tiger looks like from Kelly's heroes, I know about D-Day from the Longest day. I don't know the difference between a Huricane and a Spitfire.

I also knew about 5:1 ratio for Shermans to take down a Tiger, I knew about the air cover being the biggest enemy. I never knew that German tanks were to complex to be really reliable and valuable. Never knew they were made by small workshops rather than in large factories and I never knew that they were a rare sight on the western front.
So yeah, that article showed me something new

[nikimcbee]

I thought one would be upset about the Brad Pitt beefcake scene.:hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

Maybe the next time you (Germans) start a war you should:
1. Don't fight a multi-front war.
2. Don't invade Russia:up:.
3. Don't over engineer your tanks.:haha:

Third time a charm?

Then you can make the war movies how you want.:up:

Lucky at football, unlucky at war I guess.

[Dowly]

I'll give you a hint.

It starts with O, and ends with P.

Sorry, but I have to ask for a link still.

If it is so strongly worded one, sure you can give me?

Or BLAA BLAA BULL**** BACKED BY NOTHING?

[Tango589]

Another film I have a bad feeling about:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2807486/Dad-s-Army-cast-look-ready-battle-pose-army-fatigues-set-anticipated-WWII-comedy.html

The new 'Dads Army' film. This was an excellent tv comedy about the British Home Guard during WW2, crammed with memorable characters and brilliant scripts. To try and remake it now seems a bit pathetic and I have a feeling it'll dump on the memories of all the original cast.

Here's one of the original episodes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zynVt0I4hA0

[Schroeder]

You never quite answered to the question. :yep:
OP = Original Poster = Feuer Frei! ;)
At least that's how I interpret it...

[Dowly]

OP = Original Poster = Feuer Frei! ;)
At least that's how I interpret it...

I asked August, not FF. :hmmm:

[Aktungbby]

This was posted on subsim facebook.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/22/put-a-tiger-in-your-tank-but-not-if-you-want-to-win-the-war/

:hmmm:
Great article! Especially the solid immutable fact "Quantity has Quality of its own" 'During World War II, approximately 19,247 Shermans were issued to the US Army and about 1,114 to the US Marine Corps The U.S. also supplied 17,184 to England (some of which in turn went to the Canadians and the Free Poles), while the Russians received 4,102.'' The Russians built 100.000 tanks of which 83,000 were lost....there were only ever 1400 Tigers and that total includes rebuilds. Comin' at you from East and West, I make it....141,647 vs 1400 slow moving Tigers with limited field/bridge range/access and a logistic problem in having to dismantle wheels for rail transit....they should better have spent the Reichmarks on Panzer IV's en masse!

[nikimcbee]

And if you liked the Tiger then you'll love the King Tiger, now with cup holders.

If the tiger wasn't slow and cumbersome enough for you, we've made it more slower and more cumbersome.

Looks really cool in the show room. (petrol logistics and service not included).

An if you buy a King Tiger now, we'll install a free sound system, so you can "blitz" to this tune:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT5rqKMaHAg

[Dread Knot]

My Tiger Tank slippers keep my treads warm on those bitter Eastern Front winter nights.

http://www.milcentric.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/German-Tiger-1-Panzer-Crocheted-Tank-Slippers.jpg

[Oberon]

Yep. Despite me being a member of a military equipment forum (sort of) and a WW2 game brought me here, I'm surprisingly clueless about about that conflict. Half the bits about WW2 you throw at me will be new.
I know how a tiger looks like from Kelly's heroes, I know about D-Day from the Longest day. I don't know the difference between a Huricane and a Spitfire.

I also knew about 5:1 ratio for Shermans to take down a Tiger, I knew about the air cover being the biggest enemy. I never knew that German tanks were to complex to be really reliable and valuable. Never knew they were made by small workshops rather than in large factories and I never knew that they were a rare sight on the western front.
So yeah, that article showed me something new

Spitfire - bubble dome cockpit, elliptical wings, sometimes clipped edges.
Hurricane - greenhouse like cockpit, rectangular wings, wooden frame with canvas covering.

[Betonov]

Spitfire - bubble dome cockpit, elliptical wings, sometimes clipped edges.
Hurricane - greenhouse like cockpit, rectangular wings, wooden frame with canvas covering.

The one in York had no wings :O:

[nikimcbee]

The one in York had no wings :O:

That's the special edition, for new pilots.:hmmm:

[Dread Knot]

If you pull the wings off this model British warplane you really can have a Tempest in a teapot.

http://rcplaneviews.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DSC_0960-300x199.jpg

[Feuer Frei!]

Maybe the next time you (Germans) start a war you should:
1. Don't fight a multi-front war.
2. Don't invade Russia:up:.
3. Don't over engineer your tanks.:haha:



Then you can make the war movies how you want.:up:

Lucky at football, unlucky at war I guess.

1) There are reasons as to why it turned into a two-front war.
2) Russia's invasion, that was also inevitable, since that communist pig ( who ended up killing more people than Hitler but no-one gives a crap about that do they) would have broken the non-aggression pact anyway.
A matter of time.
3) Over-engineered? Well, we are known for producing some dam fine armament, including those 'lame' Tigers.
Certainly dented a hole into the Allied efforts.
And 1 country against the rest of the world.
Took you guys a while to defeat us. :haha:



Sorry, but I have to ask for a link still.

If it is so strongly worded one, sure you can give me?

Or BLAA BLAA BULL**** BACKED BY NOTHING?
What link? What qstn?
Why ask August who the haters are?
Pretty easy to see who the realists are and who the people are who line the Hollywood's pockets with green backs to get their 'fix' of propaganda.
Can't see why i should link you anything to back up my claims as to why this movie is anything other than garbage and the reason why i posted this thread.
If that's not clear enough, then you writing in caps isnt going to get you those links.

Not my problem that people think this movie is so dam good and realistic and 'balanced' and that ss troops marching down a road in 1945 singing, and SS not using their Panzer fausts against a crappy allied tank and running blindly into machine gun fire again and again is good stuff.

Because no Yanks or Brits or Frogs or Commies (or the rest of the allied band of warriors) were ever dumb and stupid or you know, did stuff that was abhorrent or stained with moral implications or reprehensable actions or, just running into gun fire blindly, or not using the weapon to at least attempt to destroy the other sides' armor, or....
On a person to person ratio, since the Germans were vastly outnumbered, i'd wager a bet that there were a hell of a lot more dumb soldiers on that side than ours:)
But then that wouldn't make a good movie now would it, depicting the allies as unrealistically dumb and stupid.
I'd beg to differ. I think it would make great entertainment. Since firstly, it would be nice and 'balanced', and secondly, allied troops getting caught up in fire fights and loosing badly due to their inept fighting skills due to their dumb decision-making would be swell :)

Fury, what a joke, the movie should be called: Let's kill some (more) Germans. Yawn.
Hollywood sux, it panders to those who want to feel good about portraying Germans as Nazis and that when you kill a German, it's a good day's entertainment.
Again, what a joke.

[ikalugin]

I sense that some one is emotionally invested in the matter. Maybe that person should rest, as even a Russian such as me brainwashed with the GPW myth (myth as in the cultural wake WW2 left rather than improper historiography of it) doesn't feel the need to be enraged.

[August]

I asked August, not FF. :hmmm:

Well there you go. :yep:

[Aktungbby]

Moving pictures eh, no good will come of this new fangled invention.
:har: :agree:

[Betonov]

2) Russia's invasion, that was also inevitable, since that communist pig ( who ended up killing more people than Hitler but no-one gives a crap about that do they) would have broken the non-aggression pact anyway.
A matter of time.




The Red Alert scenario, with Hitler out of the way Stalin would go on a European tour'de commie with his red army band :hmmm:
I'm sincerely not mocking you, I thought about this ever since I realized what the Red Alert intro meant. There were 2 madmen in Europe at that time. One went against the west and lost, the other went with the west and the west gave him a mandate to conquer east. IIRC the UK actually planned they'd launch an invasion of the Soviet Union in alliance with Hitler.

I'll try and dig up a link later. It's still to early

[ikalugin]

in 1945 there was Operation Unthinkable, but it is somewhat different as to what you describe.

As to the madmen - Soviets did not have an objective to exterminate everyone else for the living space, so I think they were somewhat better than the NAZIs.

[Betonov]

in 1945 there was Operation Unthinkable, but it is somewhat different as to what you describe.

As to the madmen - Soviets did not have an objective to exterminate everyone else for the living space, so I think they were somewhat better than the NAZIs.

I meant only Hitler and Stalin.
Hitler killed millions because of their beliefs and background, Stalin killed millions because of their political beliefs and sheer paranoia

Kill millions or kill millions. There's no one better than the other because of different objectives.

[ikalugin]

What categories do you include in those millions murdered by Stalin?

The difference (a very important one) is that Soviets never had a requirement for physical removal of -different- populations and this is because those populations could be converted (in fact that was the original revolutional plan). Sure there was prosecution for political reasons (one of my relatives was executed in 1937 and other went into the camp) and deaths due to mismanagement, but none of those were about systematic extermination of the -different-population and thus were less horrible in that respect.

[Catfish]

What categories do you include in those millions murdered by Stalin?

Categories ? Stalin was a pure antisemite. But he also killed anyone else he did not "like", for whatever reason. So it is well-known that Stalin did not like jews. But the jews are not the only ones, though Stalin killed millions of them, too.
Have you heard about Alexander Solzhenitsyn?
Maybe you should read this, for a change:

http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/margolisholocaust.html


"When war came, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British PM Winston Churchill allied themselves closely to Stalin, though they were well aware his regime had murdered at least 30 million people long before Hitler's extermination of Jews and gypsies began" I sometimes think it is funny, how England condemned the Hitler-Stalin pact, with their intention to divide Poland between them (calling both mass murderers), but then instantly declared war against .. Germany.
Of course, the 'treaties' England is so proud to present, only included a GERMAN attack against Poland. So they quickly aligned with the other mass-murderer, who had already killed roughly 30 million people, until the beginning of WW2.

After all it may be good for Germany that it happened this way, otherwise we would have a national-socialist Germany, and a democratic Russia... (highly cynical here, sry)

[Betonov]

...and deaths due to mismanagement, but none of those were about systematic extermination of the -different-population and thus were less horrible in that respect.

Are you kidding me ??
Mass murder is mass murder. Period. There is no shades of gray in mass murder, there's only black. Less horrible does not exist outside movie plots.

[Feuer Frei!]

And here we go:
the ONLY reason Hitler gets the limelight again and again for being the biggest baddie of them all is NOT how many he indirectly, or directly allegedly had killed.
So if we want to compare pure numbers, we must take Hitler out of the equation, simple fact.

It is really that simple.

Had Hitler done what Stalin did, ie let his people starve, sent dissidents to the gulag, never to be seen again, waged internal wars against any and all that wouldn't or didn't follow his maniacal views, well, Hitler wouldn't even be mentioned with his measly alleged 6 million.

They were both Dictators.
Dictators do what Dictators do. Some rack up a kill count higher than others. Much higher.
Stalin gets the gong for that one.

Of course when you are the victor, then we don't need to discuss that do we.
The lies and fantastical, almost mythical stories told about certain allied leaders and certain ways in which they and their minions waged war and ultimately, and inevitably of course, won, are great reads or listens.
Makes for a can of coke and pop corn night. Good entertainment.
Unless of course you don't believe the propagandist tripe that Victors more often than not dish out to the sheep, who lap it up almost blindly, in the view that their saviours are heroic little angels who saved the world from evil.
If only it was as clean and as moral as we are led to believe.

Of course you wouldn't know otherwise, if you believe everything you read and see.


OT.

[Feuer Frei!]

Holocaust denial :haha:

I see you are at it again.

Putting words in my mouth.


Welcome to the party.
Better late than never eh :haha:

You haven't seen the movie i take it.
Shame, there's a lot of entertainment there.

Edit: And it's not often (thank god) i link daily fail but:
Never mind Fury in the Ardennes, there's also Fury in Poland:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300724/Fury-Poland-German-war-drama-tries-spread-blame-Holocaust.html

:haha:

[Betonov]

Wow crazy nationalism drifting into holocaust denial.
Must of been one hell of a movie to set you off so much Feuer Frei

He's not denying holocaust. Not even drifting in.
He's just angry about the chewed up, patriot fap plot of Hollywood WW2 movies about the evil Germans and their shallow black and black portrait without any hint of deeper historical research.
Very very angry

[STEED]

Back on subject..I saw a snip it of this film and a interview with old Brad and put two and two together and came up with this looks like rubbish.

OK back to what you lot were talking about...

[ikalugin]

Have you heard about Alexander Solzhenitsyn?
Anyone actually believes in what he said? Or do you think that 1/3 of Soviet population died during the Soviet rule from Stalinist oppression, and 2/3 of the rest were sitting in Gulags? :shifty:
After all it may be good for Germany that it happened this way, otherwise we would have a national-socialist Germany, and a democratic Russia... (highly cynical here, sry)
I think in 70 years the General plan Ost would be completed if not more. So I doubt that if USSR would have lost there would be Russia in 2014 (or democratic UK for that matter). You do remember who carried the majority of war effort on the Eastern front, don't you?
Mass murder is mass murder. Period. There is no shades of gray in mass murder, there's only black. Less horrible does not exist outside movie plots
They do, if Hitler have won then 90+ percents of Polish population would have gone by 1991 (as an example). Did same happen during USSR? No.
his measly alleged 6 million
I guess one could apply double standards and forget about the what happened to Slavs in WW2, Soviet POWs and other non Jewish categories of people etc.

[Feuer Frei!]

When people throw the word "allegedly" in they are.

Now, see, i knew you'd twist that allegedly into your way of thinking. Or rather assuming.
To make it clear for you, i used the word allegedly in the context of the number is continuously being revised.
There you have it. It's all about context and in your case, assuming and out of context.
Next.

Plus of course his nationalist blindness means he can't see that Hitler did all those things he says he didn't do.
No blindness going on. Ie no denial. Ie no disputing that something went on. Ie you are basing your assumptions on taking my words out of context and assuming i am denying the holocaust.
Next.

[Feuer Frei!]

@ikalugin

there are of course many instances where not just the Poles were suffers of the 'Russian Repression'.
Or The great purge.

Katyn massacre comes to mind as an example.

[ikalugin]

@ikalugin

there are of course many instances where not just the Poles were suffers of the 'Russian Repression'.
Or The great purge.

Katyn massacre comes to mind as an example.
Sure Katyn did happen (execution of PoWs in general), however does it really compare to the targeted removal of Polish population by NAZI regime with 90 percent target?

I mean if Stalin (and Soviet regime) was as bad as Hitler (and NAZI regime) then chances of me arguing with a Polish forum member would be slimmer shall we say, after 44 or so years of Soviet hold over the Eastern Europe.

[kranz]

Polish people complaining about the reality of Polish history
really?:har:

Please, do tell us about the reality of Polish history.
I bet you're an expert in this field.

[ikalugin]

really?:har:

Please, do tell us about the reality of Polish history.
I bet you're an expert in this field.
I guess you would rather not exist due to the extermination of Polish population I guess.

[Feuer Frei!]

I mean if Stalin (and Soviet regime) was as bad as Hitler (and NAZI regime)

Was? Now now, Иосиф was the heavy weight of murderers in ww2.
If we are just talking about the removal of Poles:
As for targeted removal of Poles by the Nazis, well, do you really think that when Nazis invaded Poland in September that the Poles, looking behind them, thought that they were safe with Иосиф?
Of course not.
Stalin had his own plans for his half of the Poles.

That is a well-known fact.

[ikalugin]

So did Soviets have a program for physical removal of 90 percent of Polish population? How many Polish were murdered by Soviets (compared to Germans)?

Or do you deny existence of General Plan East?

[Feuer Frei!]

You are denying the scale of the crime and rejected the magnitude of the crime
Wrong. You should do some research on the infamous 6 million figure of the holocaust.
And you will, as most of us that have researched that number, come to the conclusion that the number hasn't always been 6 million. In fact, it has been revised so many times.
That is why i used the word alleged. In context. Not out of context.

The context is that you are upset that the Nazis are portrayed as bad guys in a movie Let's remember though, there is a difference between Germans and Nazis. and your justification is that the Stalinists were bad guys too.:doh:

Well of course it's justifiably so, that the Communist USSR was bad.
Really bad.
So bad in fact that they killed more than Hitler.
That makes them bad guys. In anyone's book.

[kranz]

I guess you would rather not exist due to the extermination of Polish population I guess.
who the...are you and what do you want from me?

[Feuer Frei!]

So did Soviets have a program for physical removal of 90 percent of Polish population? How many Polish were murdered by Soviets (compared to Germans)?

Or do you deny existence of General Plan East?

The non-aggression pact had a secret protocol that divided regions, Poland amongst others into SOI's.

17 September Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland.
Both shared goals of eradication.

You should also know that the Poles were considered enemies of communism and Russia national inspirations.

[ikalugin]

The non-aggression pact had a secret protocol that divided regions, Poland amongst others into SOI's.

17 September Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland.
Both shared goals of eradication.
So did the Soviets or did they not have plans as to physical removal of Polish population on the scale that NAZI Germany did (90 percent under General Plan Ost)?

If so, do you have any evidence that such plan existed and/or was under execution by Soviet authorities?

[Feuer Frei!]

So if i can't prove any evidence does that mean Joseph is exhonerated from genocide and nominated for a post-humos nobel peace prize? :haha:
Wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

Typical allied puppet show.

If you do some research on STalin's intense dislike towards Poles from the Polish-Soviet war 1919-1920, and an order given by our nobel nominee in 1940 following the katyn massacre, you will be well on the way to getting your proof.

Polish reverse Officers, ethnic Poles, deportations, also google Lavrenty Beria.

Sorry to say but Stalin isn't going to become innocent. As much as some wish it.

[ikalugin]

Just to clarify my position.

- I separate Germans from the NAZI organisations and government, as per Nurenberg trial NAZI party and relevant organisations illegally siezed power in Germany.

- Stalin (and Soviet regime) was a lesser evil than Hitler (and NAZI regime) due to the fact that even though it was harsh and unforgiving, it did not plan for physical eradication of entire other people as such.

[ikalugin]

So if i can't prove any evidence does that mean Joseph is exhonerated from genocide and nominated for a post-humos nobel peace prize? :haha:
Wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

Typical allied puppet show.

If you do some research on STalin's intense dislike towards Poles from the Polish-Soviet war 1919-1920, and an order given by our nobel nominee in 1940 following the katyn massacre, you will be well on the way to getting your proof.

Polish reverse Officers, ethnic Poles, deportations, also google Lavrenty Beria.

Sorry to say but Stalin isn't going to become innocent. As much as some wish it.
Feeling revisionist now? Should we revise the Nurenberg entirely and levy responsibility of NAZI regime on the Germans then?

So did or did Soviets not plan physical removal of Polish population (and execute any part of such plan) on the same scale as NAZI Germany (ie 90 percent)?

Stalin was not pretty, just not as evil as a certain criminal regime Germany had.

[Feuer Frei!]

11 million dear.:doh:
You forgot all the victims of the holocaust through the stuff you said the Nazis didn't do.
Didn't do? Oh dear....a snowball effect is happening here.
I'll make it stop.


Is there a difference? that would depend on what you are talking about
Since you are defending Germans and claiming that Hitler wasn't that bad as Stalin was worse perhaps you should draw your distinctions more carefully

Yep defending Germans, and stating that Hitler wasn't as bad as Stalin, if we are to go by the numbers.
That's what i said. Distinctively drawn conclusion i'd say.
Remember, using Hitler and Germans in the same sentence in the context of this specific discussion is not optimal.



Which doesn't make the Nazis any better
No but it makes them not the only bad guys around in Hollywood movies and also in ww2. Far from it.



Still doesn't make Nazis anything other that lowlife scum.
Depicting lowlife scum as bad guys in a movie is perfectly acceptable.
Why are you uspet by it?
Well, could we depict maybe lowlife commy scum in a Hollywood movie and kill em all until the last 1 burns and save the day and earth from Communism?
Or aren't we allowed to call them that because you know, they were the 1 of the big 4? :haha:

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, ikalugin, i'm afraid that if you need the Nuremberg trials to decide for you the difference btw a German and nazi then i don't really know what else to say to you.

Revionist?
No revision there, of course you will defend your illutrious leader to the hilt, because most Russians to this day do so, saying that Stalin was 1 of the best leaders the country ever had.
Of course, because to deport so many ethnic groups to the gulags and concentration camps, he needed a lot of servants for that.
His fingers reach far and wide, even to this day there would be relatives of relatives that had relatives who did his genocidal bidding.

Seriously if you keep exhonerating him and saying he wasn't as bad as Hitler then i'm afraid the we have nothing left to discuss.
Especially since you don't want to see the truth and call it revisionism :haha:
Typical.

I don't have an issue with my heritage.
It seems you need to revise your countrie's history a bit more, especially that of your nobel piece price nominee.
If that doesn't give anyone a clue as to how farcical and fabricated and fantastical some of this allied ww2 saga is then i really don't know.

And this 90% thing, you can have that if you want. If it makes you sleep better at night.
Still doesn't change anything about Stalin or the things i told you to look up, which you conveniently call revionism.
Newsflash my friend, Russia in 1990, yes it took them that long, admitted guilt to Katyn massacre, after trying to pin it on the Nazis. :) Funny stuff really.
But of course we both know that Katyb was just the tip of the iceberg so to speak.
We both know it, others know it.
Stalin knew it.

[ikalugin]

I'll make it stop.
So should or should we not stop this discussion?

If you do not wish to continue I won't force it and would exit the discussion as well. As such I give you the benefit of the doubt, counting two of your last posts as a single last statement.

[Jimbuna]

Seriously guys, wasn't this thread supposed to be about a new movie release???

[Feuer Frei!]

So should or should we not stop this discussion?

If you do not wish to continue I won't force it and would exit the discussion as well. As such I give you the benefit of the doubt, counting two of your last posts as a single last statement.

No ill feelings to you of course, i hope you don't take this as a personal attack, rather a free-spirited discussion point in which we both have our points of view.

[kranz]

Polish people complaining about the reality of Polish history

Why not look at the work of Instytut Pamięci Narodowej – Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu.
I don't know if you are familiar with it, its a Polish thing set up under Polish law by the Polish government.:yep:
Among other things it deals with Polish people participating in the holocaust.
It also deals with Poles murdering Jews for being Jews in the post war period.


I am, but you obviously aren't.

Your logic: in the only scene depicting Polish partisans, the Home Army tries to kill Jews and refrains from saving them. --> Poles are complaining --> they are complaining about 'the reality of Polish history' --> the reality of Polish history was about murdering Jews. (your initial post).

Now the funniest thing:
you are (ineptly) trying to say that the history of Poles murdering Jews (the reality of Polish history) is inside IPN documents...among other things.
Did you check these 'other things'? I doubt.

did you browse through all the materials of IPN or only those devoted to Poles murdering Jews?
Do these materials say anything about Poles saving Jews?
Do they say what was the general trend?
Let's suppose that Poles did both - murder Jews and save them and let's even suppose it was like 50% - 50%.
Why does the series not present Poles saving Jews?
You obviously have no frigging idea what the documents you mentioned are about.

Poland was the only country with capital punishment for hiding Jews. You didn't know about that.
There have been 24 811 titles of 'Righteous Among the Nations' - Poles got 26% of the titles given - which is the biggest representation among other nations.You didn't know that.
Sure there were a lot of exceptions like Jedwabne any a lot of other minor cases but there were exceptions to the rule that Poles were saving Jews. You didn't know that.

To sum up with: the documents you invoked do hold the truth about the reality of Polish history yet you haven't read them thus you have completely no idea what you are talking about.
Get your facts straight next time.

[ikalugin]

No ill feelings to you of course, i hope you don't take this as a personal attack, rather a free-spirited discussion point in which we both have our points of view.
My question still stands, especially considering the thread derailment aspect.

[MH]

Let me put it in simple way...Hitler generally speaking was better/more racional for his own people than Stalin yet worse to anyone else....at least at early on.
In particular considering his plans for the east.
Stalin to the Russian turned out to be savor as match as lunatic.
If not for his ruthless Russia could had lost the war with all the consequences... hence the split personality issue.

My grandfather born in Poland had spend some time in Siberian gulag , better deal than Auschwitz for sure....
Now what is this discussion about ...which one does not get his due respect?

Any sheep who has some mild interest in history knows more or less how things used to be.
Nothing beats the grand plans for the east with systematic slavery and elimination based on racial ideology.

Just watch some old action movies about commies..for the balance.

[Feuer Frei!]

My question still stands, especially considering the thread derailment aspect.

Well the thread derailment was inevitable due to some having a particular notion that certain events didn't occur and are still trivialized to this day.

As to your qstn, i stated quite clearly the things you should research and that you can 'have' the 90%.
If you pass that off as revionism then that is just adding to the derailment process and calling it revisionism is frankly quite laughable and is ignorant as well.

Asserting that Russia through its dictator played a minor role in the planned and often successful deportation, killing and or eradication of hundreds of thousands of people of various ethnic makeup is laughable, untrue and letting Stalin off the hook. Once again. And still.
Just like at the U.N. genocide convention.

Here's something to digest for you: "Who's going to remember all this riff-raff in ten or twenty years' time? No one. … Who remembers the names now of the boyars Ivan the Terrible got rid of? No one. … The people had to know he was getting rid of all his enemies. In the end, they all got what they deserved."

[Dread Knot]

Just watch some old action movies about commies..for the balance.

You can all come over to my house and watch 12 Years a Slave and we'll beat up on the USA for a while.

Or we can watch Breaker-Morant and bad-mouth the British.

Or watch Rabbit-Proof Fence and tsk-tsk on the Aussies.

Or watch Resident Evil and hate on everyone's favorite villian-- the corporation

Etc..etc.

[ikalugin]

So I should take it as a yes, and you do indeed wish to continue?

[Feuer Frei!]

So I should take it as a yes, and you do indeed wish to continue?
It will have to wait, it is 02:21 here, time for bed.

[kranz]

Now you are talking complete bollox.

I just re-phrased your bollox logic.


epic fail.
your version of 'the reality of Polish history' is epic fail.

You took a TV series' version for granted, came here and told me to 'read the documents about Poles murdering Jews which are 'among other things'
What are those other things IPN came up with? Poles hunting for pink elephants?

Might even read the middle of your bollox post later...now I don't have time for fairy tales.

concerning 'Yad Vashem' numbers...:har::har::har::har::har::har:
I used an older article.
25,53915553%

btw, you've been reading David Irving recently, haven't you?:har::har::har::har::har::har:

[Tango589]

That's it. I'm out of this thread. I came here to read about a film that potentially stunk, and it's descended into another argument.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm260/tango589/served.gif

[Sailor Steve]

And that scene is from Marlowe, a film that certainly didn't stink. It took some liberties with Raymond Chandler's classic The Little Sister, but it stuck fairly close to the plot, starred James Garner and Bruce Lee had one of the funniest death scenes ever. :yeah:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064638/?ref_=nv_sr_2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SPxKV47Hxc

[Betonov]

Woops, sorry about it.
This whole mess started when the most pro-russian member of the forum got into an argument with a Russian :doh:

[kranz]

No you silly thing,
you polish nationalists on the subject of Polish people killing Jews:rotfl2:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/krakow-church-holds-service-against-kikes-who-spit-on-us-1.239148

it appears that you not only study history by watching German TV series and 'reading' documents which you have never seen and have no idea about but also you call people nationalists on the basis of an article which calls a Catholic radio station 'anti-semite'. :rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

[Catfish]

it appears that you not only study history by watching German TV series and 'reading' documents which you have never seen and have no idea about but also you call people nationalists on the basis of an article which calls a Catholic radio station 'anti-semite'. :rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:


Hahah.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jun/05/poland

[Oberon]

Christ on a bike...I go away for 24 hours and the second Great Patriotic War breaks out.

[Dread Knot]

Christ on a bike...I go away for 24 hours and the second Great Patriotic War breaks out.

You know how it is. Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Those who can't let the past go are condemned to wallow in it. :)

[Tango589]

Christ on a bike...I go away for 24 hours and the second Great Patriotic War breaks out.
Don't leave again, dammit, the whole place goes to hell in a hand basket as soon as you shut the door!

[Tango589]

And that scene is from Marlowe, a film that certainly didn't stink. It took some liberties with Raymond Chandler's classic The Little Sister, but it stuck fairly close to the plot, starred James Garner and Bruce Lee had one of the funniest death scenes ever. :yeah:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064638/?ref_=nv_sr_2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SPxKV47Hxc
:har::har:

[kranz]

Yeah right.
So documents which prove the point I am making are somehow by magic documents that I havn't read because you don't like what they contain.:doh:

believe me - you won't find legit documents confirming your hilarious and stupid claim. Unless you write your own.:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

but joking apart - please, do tell sth more about 'murdering Jews as the reality of Polish history'. I assume you still have much to say...:har::har::har:

[kranz]

You must be very special Kranz, you already admitted they exist, they were written by a body of your government , your president made a very public apology for the murders.

Only a really special person would try to deny such things after admitting them:rotfl2:
Refresh your memory on what your president said.


I'm very special because I believe there are some remnants of brain cells somewhere in your head and I also believe that maybe one day you will find out how to make a proper use of them. Anyways...
Before you make a bigger fool of yourself by quoting another 'villages', I can tell you that I already admitted that these incidents happened and I have never denied their existence.
It's really funny how you are trying to back up from your initial claim so I advise you to refresh your memory on it.

[Jimbuna]

Looks like we've moved from discussing a film to a position of arguing, trading insults and adding a few doses of condescension.

If we can't stay on topic then I don't see the point of moderators wasting their time maintaining a watchful stance here.