In the scene the officers trapped in the basement..
In that scene the GIs are throwing grenades down the breathing tube. Why were the German officers trying to touch them through that grate?
shareFrom what I gathered, they were trying to take them out before the pins were pulled. That's why Lee Marvin wanted to pour the gasoline down, that seemed like a last minute plan. He said to throw them down with the pins still in, and they might not have exploded that way. It almost looked like Charles Bronson was having second thoughts about killing those people. I don't remember why he was on death row, maybe he had killed officers before, he said he could get used to killing officers at the very end.
Velvet Voice
Joseph Wladislaw, Charles Bronson´s character, had been sentenced to hang for shooting a deserting officer who was his squad's medic.
Wladislaw´s remark at the end of the movie, ¨Killin' generals could get to be a habit with me,¨ is made with sarcasm.
On a different note, I find the manslaughter of Germans, and their innocent wives and mistresses, burnt to death in a bomb shelter, to be a reprehensible, cruel and inhuman act that should not take place in the movie. The premise of the film is to kill the Germans in the chateau to hamper their military's ability to respond to D-Day. But the end does not justify the means of sadistically kill them and allow the audience to indulge into watching as an act of celebration. The fact that the Germans deserved to be punished for their acts of cruelty and inhumanity does not justify to treat them in a equal, or worse manner.
I looked but found no comments from posters sharing this point of view.
Wladislaw´s remark at the end of the movie, ¨Killin' generals could get to be a habit with me,¨ is made with sarcasm.
Yes, QUITE sarcastic; a few weeks ago that same General (Worden?) wanted to stretch Wladislaw's neck, now Worden's pinning a medal on him & telling him how they need more guys with his bravery.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
share
[deleted]
The only crimes that rated the hangman's noose was rape and murder...I'm sure that 'scared young soldier' did either one or the other or both...
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Copied directly from Wikipedia:
Currently, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 14 offenses are punishable by death. Under the following sections of the UCMJ, the death penalty can be imposed at any time:
94 - Mutiny or sedition
99 - Misbehavior before the enemy
100 - Subordinate compelling surrender
101 - Improper use of countersign
102 - Forcing a safeguard
104 - Aiding the enemy
106a - Espionage
110 - Improper hazarding of vessel
118 - Murder (including both premeditated murder and felony murder)
120 - Rape (including child rape)[5]
Four provisions of the UCMJ carry a death sentence only if the crime is committed during times of war:
85 - Desertion
90 - Assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer
106 - Lurking as a spy or acting as a spy
113 - Misbehavior of a sentinel or lookout
True. By today's standards slaughtering the women as well as the men all trapped in the basement would be considered a war crime.
But placing this action within the context of WWII, there were plenty of atrocities committed on both sides. Their mission was to disrupt the Germans to such an extent that D-Day would have the best chance of success. To that end, what they did supports that mission.
Had they not done what they did, there is the possibility those trapped in the basement would escape and the D-Day operation might not have been successful.
There is no such thing as a polite war.
Why would it be a war crime? If there were enemy combatants among the men and women in the basement, how could the Americans have separated out the women civilians or all the civilians?
share[deleted]
Look, I agree with you. It looks like you are responding to someone other than me. I say they should have burned ever one of em.
Why don't you be more careful in whol you direct your comments to?
[deleted]
The entire operation was an act of terrorism to eliminate the enemy. Terrorism was used to defeat the enemy or at least to distract them so that the allies could force an offensive. These soldiers were expendable so were called upon to use their talents for ruthlessness and dishonor. They did forge a team spirit during the period and a sense of duty.
shareI don't agree. It was not an act of terrorism and not a war crime. It was an act of war. The soldiers and Major Reisman were engaged in a mission of honor, not dishonor. Ruthlessness, yes, but that is a good skill to have in a mission during a shooting war.
The Germans and Japs started the war; to a major extent they deserve what they got. The Americans did not target civilians, but if they were caught in the war actions, it is regrettable but not dishonorable.
To kill the women of the Germans while they were at a party is pure terrorism. Many of the men killed were disarmed themselves. The operation was designed to maximise the kill ratio not capture the building and hold the hostages captivate.
Our country to this day will drop a bomb on a building or area to take out enemy combatants despite the fact that "collateral damage" might involve innocent civilians so I wouldn't be so sure if I were you.
sharePretty funny thread
share