The supreme irony of this type of film is that the Germans are always the losers, sometimes heroically, most often stupidly.
In real life (IRL for geekspeakers) the Germans won WWI in Africa, Colonel von Lettow-Vorbeck beat all comers and only surrendered after the end of the war.
He was possibly the 2nd best commander in WWI, after Mackensen (or Hutier?).
Even though I loved the film, I resent the depiction of Germans as perpetual losers.
ay there's the rub. But that happens to every nation that ultimately loses. Example: today the French are ridiculed as being cowards who "never won a war", but the truth is, under Napoleon's rule they had conquered all of Europe and Northern Africa. Napoleon just shouldn'ta taken that right turn at Polotsk. The rest is history ...and historical fiction ;)
sharePrecisely. If one remembers that the French defended Dien Bien Phu at least as bravely as the Americans did Hue in the same theatre of war, then the myth of French cowardice is only propaganda.
Much is made of France's swift surrender in WWII. I maintain that it was by far the best choice, (and should be the duty of any government) to avoid the catastrophes of Verdun or the Vosges.
I'm sure the complete debacle of Verdun was heavy on their minds at the outset of WWII. Weighing heavily on their decision...
Congratulations on the Earth... Bill and I enjoy it on a daily basis.
The French defended Dien Bien Phu... at least halfway on the blood of other than French! The legionaires were Germans from the SS and Wehrmacht.
shareThe French capitulation in WWII had less to do with fearing painful military defeats and more to do with the pro-fascist sympathies and virulent anti-Semitism of much of its right-wing ruling class, which preferred collaboration with Germany to resistance against it. Basically, they hated Jews, socialists and communists more than they hated the Germans, and felt that the real war wasn't against the German invasion but against the Soviet Union, the Jews and the communist parties and other progressive forces of Europe. Because that was the war Germany was fighting, the French ruling class sympathized with it, and so they became collaborators. The French PEOPLE, on the other hand, never gave up but fought a heroic partisan resistance war for years, led by the French Communist Party, against the fascists. Had the French government actually represented the French people, they would have fought the fascist invaders to the end.
In any case, I dislike this whole macho idea of nations being spoken of as entities being "cowardly" or "brave" based on how often they win wars, no matter how odious the cause in that war. For instance Dien Bien Phu; the French colonial war in Indochina was an unjust war in defense of oppression, and they deserved to lose, no matter how well they fought. It's completely different from the anti-fascist war in WWII. The cause you fight for is far more important than whether you win or lose or how well you fight.
> In real life (IRL for geekspeakers) the Germans won WWI in Africa, Colonel von Lettow-Vorbeck beat all comers and only surrendered after the end of the war.
They also won against Russia.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The German forces in Tanzania were never properly defeated in battle, but Germany lost control of all her other African territories during the war e.g. Namibia. Mind you, it was amazing for Von Lettow-Vorbeck, to have held back all allied invasions during the course of the war, a sure sign that he was a talented commander.
shareIn real life (IRL for geekspeakers)
shareThe Allies were not overly concerned about Africa during World War I. They were mainly concerned about Europe.
shareThere was a great book about von Lettow-Vorbeck written a few years back.
share