MovieChat Forums > Into the White (2013) Discussion > Burning 'Mein Kampf' in front of the ene...

Burning 'Mein Kampf' in front of the enemy = Ridiculous

posted 11 years ago by erol-mehmet-a
20 replies | jump to latest

I am really tired of this anti-Nazi crap in every WW2 movie, be it Hollywood one or European one. No German soldier would have humiliated his leader in front of enemy soldiers. German officers may not like Hitler ( But you should know that popularity of Hitler among the soldiers were very high early in the war ), but burning his book unnecessarily is just *beep* And think like that Josepf liked leader of his country and admired him. You are his friend and you burn his book for no reason. This doesn't make any sense.

That movie is a way overrated and doesn't deserve anything better than 4. Other crap :

+ British soldier asks German officer that why Hitler conquered most of Europe ? This is wrong, at that point, only Poland and Denmark were invaded. Norway was currently being invaded. France and Benelux countries were all around and alive. So, his question is pointless.

+ No prisoner of war could have been as daring as British POWs in the beginning. If you are taken prisoner and act like them in such a situation, you would be shot immediately. There would have been very nervous environment and POWs would probably have been tied.

[–] skat1140 11 years ago

Good point.

I am really tired of this anti-slavery crap in every Civil War movie.

[–] future_citizen 11 years ago

I viewed him burning the book as a way of expressing his fatigue of the stress of the war. He was drunk and the book was added fuel for the fire.

+The British soldier was just an individual with a Western biased view of the war.
+The films based on a true story. Some British soldiers are crass rabble rousers and some German soldiers are patient and empathetic. They're men with varying personality types.

I'm a neo-fascist and I thought it was a great movie.

[–] mtts_88 11 years ago

and then the moment when you realize this is based off real events. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they probably have all written in some way about their experience, excluding those who did not survive the war.

so....theres that.

[–] nelly3 10 years ago

"anti-Nazi crap in every WW2 movie"
I hope you realize how weird that sounds. Maybe you think a WW2 film should have music and dance segments like a Bollywood film.
I can't say for sure if the burning of Mein Kampf actually happened or was just a bit of theatrics, but then neither can you.

[–] sfcanneto 10 years ago

It is entirely plausible, while the Nazis had support of a good part of the military, the officer ranks did not but their regimentation would not allow for active resistance to authority; no matter the method used to obtain it.

In reference to the original "anti-Nazi crap", there was nothing portrayed in the film that differentiated the Nazi's hunger for world conquest from the British. Time has a way of softening the memories of those not directly affected.

[–] whatsthisnow 8 years ago

Maybe you think a WW2 film should have music and dance segments like a Bollywood film.

Can we have jazz hands too pls?

[–] Lash125 10 years ago

I agree that it's a stupid scene, but it's not really that unrealistic, considering that Horst had his life torn apart by following orders all the time. Strunk, on the other hand, did not look pleased at all. Not viewing Schwartz' reaction upon learning about the destruction of his precious book makes the scene pretty useless, however. After all, he was the zealous one.

[–] erik_1983 10 years ago

I am pretty sure the british soldier was thinking about Austria and Czechoslovakia in addition to Poland, Denmark and Norway. Also remember that Hitler claimed first Austria then a part of Czechoslovakia which both England and France agrred to, then he later invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. So I don't think this was a stupid question at all. Maybe a bit bold for a prisoner of war, but he was young and they where in a special situation. For the part about book I did not totally understand it myself, but it either happened or it was a choice from the moviemakers. Anyways I felt it showed he didn't understand the war himself and as another one said here; he was drunk.

[–] erol-mehmet-a 10 years ago

Germany didn't "invade" Austria and Sudetenland. They were peaceful annexations and Allied powers recognized them too. For invading rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, it was still peaceful but could be takend as "invasion". But that part of Czechoslovakia doesn't constitute "most of Europe".

[–] DrWhen 10 years ago

I also found the book burning scene cliché. I also found the sniping of the one German melodramatic as it would make much more sense to capture them in that situation. It's not like a couple guys that might have side arms would be a threat to their squad with rifles.

[–] lulupalooza 8 years ago

@DrWhen:

That melodrama was based on truth. The "sniping" actually happened according to the real-life witnesses. It was sparked by the Norwegians' surprise approach upon the two men in the snow.

The Brit ("Davenport" character in real life) hit the ground immediately while Strunk (the German) remained upright on his skis and unfortunately made a spontaneous motion toward his gun. With typical military response, the Norwegians instantly took him out, as portrayed in the film. Otherwise, the remaining men were captured as you suggested.

Life is sometimes melodramatic...somewhere over the 🌈.

"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

[–] EmpressOfTheSea 8 years ago

I do not know why the film changed the name. Davenport in real life was named R. (Richard) S. Partridge.



[–] Kuato_and_George 10 years ago

I know right? How dare they disrespect the fuhrer!!!

Ass hole.

For my latest movie reviews and news:http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/