I'm just watching this on TV and I guess I will probably get flamed for asking but why does this movie portray the Germans in such a sympathetic light? They seem to be the kind of guys you would want to have a beer with rather than the usual cardboard cutouts you see in most WW2 movies. How come?
"Knowledge is cheap at any price"
You are right that the the majority of the Germans come across as more than ciphers, although the Nazi hierarchy, as largely represented by Goering, and Hitler during that one speech (apparently attended by every babe in Berlin!) don't come across as well as the grunts doing the actual fighting. There could be a variety of reasons for this. There are a lot of German actors in the film, for a start, and they get a fair bit of screen time so that helps to round out their characters. It also probably reflects the attitude that the Luftwaffe was a fairly honourable organisation and that fighter pilots of any stripe were heroic 'Knights of the Air'. Despite the fact that the Luftwaffe was probably the most Nazi of the German armed forces (well, except for the Waffen SS) there is probably some truth to this - they treated captured enemy flyers with respect and their prison camps were well run.
It's also likely that the filmmakers where reflecting the political climate of the time. Several late '60's/early '70's war films ('Waterloo', 'Zulu', The Longest Day') show a degree of even-handedness to the 'enemy' and an 'anti-war' undercurrent that would probably have seemed strange to earlier generations.
Fair enough and I can see the similarity with "Zulu" apart from having Michael Caine.
It did seem odd to me that Goering was presented as a sort of jovial buffoon who I expected to break into a song and dance at any moment.
"Knowledge is cheap at any price"
Also British war films generally have treated the Germans fairly showing only a minority as vicous Nazis.
Funny you should say that about Goering's portrayal as Hein Reiss who played him was a German comedian/song and dance man as far as I remember.
The film rather shows the British public's perception of Goering as a bit of a buffoon- Allied propaganda was very successful in doing so it seems. The real Goering was dangerous and highly intelligent as Allied officers who met him before and during the Nurembourg Trials have attested.
"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."
Adolf Galland, the German fighter ace upon which one of the German squadron commanders is based, was on set as Luftwaffe adviser. He nearly walked off several times, in protest at how the Germans were portrayed. According to Hamilton, they had to re-script and re-shoot several scenes to make the German characters more human and less 'stereotyped'.
shareIm of German descent and I had to take loads of *beep* because of that even growing up in Sweden in the 90´s ..
I have no doubt about all soldiers/airmen serving under other nations are completely evil.
Germans from WW2 are usually portrayed as true evil and scum of the earth.. are we sure all Japanese airmen where scum of the earth? It`s all ni the eye of the beholder, ..
The funny thing is that Goering actually pointed this out during the Nuremberg trials. . being charged with "agressive expansion war" , he questioned the british rights of accusing germany on this when they had forcefully colonized a large part of the world themselves..
My final opinion, Its a fair and just portrait of WW2 Airmen,.many WW2 pilots from both sides says this movie is fairly accurate.
The funny thing is that Goering actually pointed this out during the Nuremberg trials. . being charged with "agressive expansion war" , he questioned the british rights of accusing germany on this when they had forcefully colonized a large part of the world themselves..
Most of Britain's conquests were by wars not treaties when you look at the number of battle honours on the British Regimental Flags and the number of campaign medals along with the clasps attached to the medals that were issue to the British soldiers. Also the English spend a good time, money, and manpower to conquer the Irish, Welsh, and Scottish people. Remember the movie Braveheart? Afghanistan and the Northwest Frontier in Pakistan were the only two places that Britain couldn't conquer unless they killed off the entire populations in those areas because those people fought back
Both the French and the USA were just as guilty of carrying out wars of aggression. Most of America's wars were to acquire land at the expense of the Native American Indians and during the 1920s and 1930s, US Marines were send to Central America and the Caribbean to protect US business interests instead of trying to bring Democracy to the vast majority of poor people. Once the wars were over, then the British, French, and Americans sign peace treaties because they were the winners not the losers.
In the movie Sharpe's Challenge, the Indian princess told the daughter of the British General stated that India did not asks the British to come to their country nor did the British come in friendship. They came to India to plunder.
Afghanistan and the Northwest Frontier in Pakistan were the only two places that Britain couldn't conquer unless they killed off the entire populations in those areas because those people fought back
The war ended in the Treaty of Gandamak after attaining all the British geopolitical objectives. Most of the British and Indian soldiers withdrew from Afghanistan. The Afghans were permitted to maintain internal sovereignty but they had to cede control of their nation's foreign relations to the British.[3][4]
Most of Britain's conquests were by wars not treaties when you look at the number of battle honours on the British Regimental Flags
Also the English spend a good time, money, and manpower to conquer the Irish, Welsh, and Scottish people.First of all, the Irish, Welsh and Scots peoples were just as warlike as the English and if they could have conquered England they would have done so. They also attacked England many times in wars or simply by cross border raids. They weren't bunches of peaceful hippies attacked by the nasty English. Moreover Scotland wasn't conquered but willingly came into the Act Of Union with England.
Most of the medals were awarded for fighting against the native population (example there were four different types of the India General Service Medal with various clasps plus various African campaign medals).
The English were the invaders when they tried to conquer Scotland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Scottish_Independence so they were not a peace loving people who got along well with their neighbors.
The British East India Company still need regular British troops during their wars with the various Indian states (The Punjab Wars, Sikh Wars and various expeditions on the Northwest Frontier).
Unfortunately, any of your arguments are torpedoed by referencing Braveheart as reliable history. It's complete hogwash: a glorified swashbuckler washed down with large doses of Gibsonesque Anglophobia. The slightest research into the real history of the period would reveal gross anachronisms, falsehoods, a sentimenatlised hero vs villain narrative and barely no attempt to present the real William Wallace (who wasn't actually that nice a chap).
shareGalland complained about the Nazi salute one officer gives Goering when he leaves by train, but IIRC that officer was a member of the Nazi Party and so he would have given the Nazi salute to another member of the Nazi Party- ie Goering- in any case rather than using the Luftwaffe salute. This was pointed out to him and he grudgingly accepted the scene.
Galland seemed to be a bit of a huffy bugger on set altogether TBH. He also complained that the British didn't win the BoB. As the Luftwaffe's clearly stated aim was to destroy the RAF and it is obvious that they failed to do so, hence the British did win the BoB.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!"
Still William Wallace and Robert the Bruce made the English paid a stiff price for trying to conquer Scotland when you look at it from a historial, political, and military viewpoint.
If you want inaccuracies look at the 1960s movie The Alamo starring John Wayne. Two historical advisers demanded that their names be remove from the credits because the movie was full of inaccuracies. John Wayne's associates stated that the film was a political platform for Mr. Wayne for his own political and personal viewpoints.
Of course you have a lot of TV shows and movies that are full of inaccuracies, biases, etc. Police officers hate police films and TV series because they complain that they don't show real police work plus the public thinks that the police can solve crime in a hour or 2 hours. Then again, police would not like it if police films and TV series actually show how police operate in real life such as spending more time spying on the American public, having secret intelligence files on American citizens and organizations that are no threat to the country, the huge amount of police corruption and cover ups, the racist, sexist, and anti-union attitudes by the police, not giving people their Miranda rights, using illegal means to secure convictions, fighting civil rights organizations, etc. Chief William Parker got total creative control over the TV show Dragnet to ensure that the LAPD cops were always right and impartial and to see that nothing bad would be show in a negative light on his department. I am sure that The FBI director J. Edgar Hoover did the same thing with the TV Show The FBI.
The ghosts of all the slaves say "Bollocks!".
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
Not saying it was good or bad, Squeethie, just the historical facts. Just the facks, M'am.
The British Empire did exist and I don't think most Victorians were the slightest bit ashamed of it. We have different and somewhat more enlightened views today though.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!"
Ordinary British people had a good record of opposition to the terrorism and military dictatorship imposed on "colonials", after all they were the ones which compelled the abolition of slavery, something we contemporaries can't boast. The most significant thing about the parasitic existence of empire is that the British state lost control of its empire but became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the USA - landlord turned manager (unlike Bar Humbug where "landlord's gaff, landlord's rules" still rules).
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
Luftwaffe ace Adolf Galland was a technical advisor for this movie, and I read that in order to get his participation, the producers promised him the Germans (for the most part) would not be pictured too harshly. (Goering was fair game, though, even his own Luftwaffe crew during the war didn't like him.) :)
share[deleted]
[deleted]
The Germpilots - especially fighter pilots - at the time were still a small elite. The Last Knights, I think Adolf Galland called himself and his colleges. There was still some 'sports spirit' in flying and battle. It even happened that pilots who had run out of ammo were spared by pilots from the other side. Galland tried that, as far as I remember. But he also emphasizes that this would never happen on the Eastern Front. Not only was the fighting more bitter and 'fundamental' there. The great losses had also 'created' a new kind of pilots.
Otherwise: It was Galland who asked Göring for a Staffel of Spitfires!
German combat troops were not all demons. The bad guys were those that came in after the invasions.
Yeah, you would think the British would be bitter about guys who were dropping bombs on them and trying to destroy their cities and kill their families. But the movie makes them look like another team in a sporting contest, one that fought well but lost.
I guess when the movie was made Britain needed West Germany as an ally against the USSR more than they needed to keep the old animosity against Germany alive.
The fighters weren't dropping bombs. To me the fighter pilots of both sides were better men than I could ever be.
share