James Caan reminds me of my grandfather, who was also a Sergeant in WW2. I've read about the parts of Europe my grandfather was in and what he was doing.
I literally have no idea how he lived through 3 or 4 villages of house to house fighting, riding on tanks with no cover, forced marching through waist deep snow, swimming across freezing rivers under machine gun fire, or seizing dams and bridges before the Germans blew them to pieces.
@BritishHistoryWWII considering that the P51 was the result of a BRITISH request....
the Spitfire, for all it's qualities (speed, maneuverability) suffered from it's short range. not as bad as the Messerschmidt, but the requirement that the fighter was needed for, Bomber escort, called for a fighter with the range to fly to Berlin and Back....and the Spitefire simply couldn't do it, upgrades or not.
and, for the record, the ROMANS can be thanked for English...
I see two ways how to explain why whole company of German soldiers did not hit the US GI. First: they are tremendously bad shooters or second: the movie is tremendously bad.
More on Lend Lease, American shipments of telephone cable, aluminium, canned rations, and clothing were also critical. by Wikipedia, @100imachristian facts over emotion. If you dislike Americans that's fine but don't refine history to fit your prejudice. Peace, love and blessings.
More on Lend Lease, Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.
facts of Lend Lease,The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).
@100imachristian how do you think Russia was able to take berlin so fast to end the war, i guess it certainly wasn't the tens of thousands of trucks we sent them after the Northern routes were cleared of harassments. Or the fact that the Americans and British bombed the living hell out of German industry. It also definetly wasn't our opening of a second front that cost the Germans almost every division on the western front, you know the 500,000 casualties the whermacht took in June-august 1944
the fact is none of the allied nations could have taken germany single handely... if it wasnt for the 30 million red army soldiers bearing down on the werhmacht in the east, the brits and yanks would have been slaughtered at normandy....
@plotkin514 Actually dude, the Few (the RAF) changed the tide of the war in the Battle Of Britain. If the Luftwaffe had destroyed the RAF -which they outnumbered drastically- Germany would have taken Britain and changed the outcome of the war. And with the RAF doing most of their bombing at night, fighter escort was not as paramount as with the daylight raid by the USAAF. But nice to see you say that you "helped" instead of saying "we won it."
@MrComatost Definitely a team effort. But our team came from a nice safe continent with 2700 miles of ocean between us and the war. Before that there was lend-lease. Without the USA, Germany wins. That DOES NOT discount the amazing courage and bravery of the British in particular and many others as well. But that is the very calculation of the GREAT man who inspired that courage--Winston Churchill (who was half-American).
The big myth: The USA won ww2. This myth was born out appearances. The allies had been fighting since 1939; the US since 1941. That's two years of unaffected industrial production. Nor was there a drain on her manpower. The US did not win the bloody war all by themselves.
And lets not forget ww1 when they showed up THREE years late. Oh well; maybe in ww3 they'll show up on time.
Anyone who thinks their nation won WWII by themselves is a moron. i will say this to my countrymen in the US and I will say it to the Europeans who like to marginalize America's contribution to WWII. Both parties need to just shut their mouths and stop cheapening the sacrifice made by ALL in that war with your pointless bickering.
@100imachristian When you run into some American who thinks the US won the war singlehandedly, feel free to tell them they are full of it. It's what this American does when he hears some Russian or Brit who says the same for their own country. But please try not to make blanket statements and assumptions about a whole country and how its people think -- unless of course you WANT to sound like a moronic racist idiot....
@100imachristian You're also leaving out that Russia carried out sick experiments themselves, such as dropping early nuclear bombs on their own men, and also seeing exactly what happened when you fired a flame thrower through a tank's hatch.....
@mphrdldn The soviets used, this is known for example in the battle for moskau, blocking detachments. NKVD troops would setup positions behind regular troops (a few miles), so the regular troops would not retreat so easily. This in fact turned out to let the troops in front fight harder and soldiers who were only lightly wounded, would not leave their post so easily.
@tomtom34b This sounds like a justification for terror tactics employed by NKVD. Troops often retreated for very good reasons like ran out of ammo, no weapons to begin with, lousy leadership (often from the political officers), resentment of Moscow that had understandably built over the years, and hopeless tactical positions. By contrast USA executed exactly one soldier during whole of the war for desertion--yeah ONE (Brits probably none) Punsihment by RA was arbitrary and toatal.
@555paint I dont know what you mean with terror tactics. But you are aware that the russian soldier thats drops his ammo could claim he ran out and has good reason to retreat, in your army, moskau would have fallen, because every soldier would have given a mockery of a fight at best before retreating for "good" reasons.
@tomtom34b as far as USA amry goes as I said several times the USA Army executed exactly ONE soldier for desertion during the entire war and even he would have escaped death had it not been for the Battle of the Bulge...because some unties of the USA Army had surrendered en masses Eisenhower was unnerved by the decline in discipline and ordered the execution to proceed. In general USA deseters were given seveal chances to return to their untis. I doubt Brits executed anyone.
@555paint terror tactics meaning NKVD blocking units opening fire on retreating troops, arbitrary executions, punishment details like clearing mine fields by marching their own troops through them...terror tactics. They were meant to terrorize the ranks and they did. Also: plenty of evidence exists of RA soldiers being sent into combat with no ammo or weapons early on in the war and then executions if they retreat. They were expected to eat German ammo up.
@mphrdldn Absolultely. NKVD had special units called blocking units that fired on Red Army troops who retreated even when they had run out of ammo or had no weapons to begin with. (Opening scene of Enemy at Gates depicts this practice) also Richard Overy's Russia's War documets it. Punishment were sevre and total in Red Army. Not just firing on own troops. Punishment units meant being forced to link arms and clear mine fields or make hopeless charges to eat up German ammo etc.
@mphrdldn As far as I know these terrorist practices only began to diminish as the Red Army leadership slowly began to assert its power against the party...example undercutting the power of the political officers etc. Only then did the worst of this stop but still throughout the war the Red Army ranks were subject to extreme terror from NKVD etc.
Thanks so much for uploading this wonderful movie. This scene with James Caen
and the doctor is so funny. He kept his promise to his captain. I wish Caen would have had a bigger part. I've only seen the captain in one other movie, The Dead Zone starring Christopher Walken. It's a really good movie also.
@100imachristian The Americans lost about 400,000 men in the war not millions. The Russians only lost millions of men because they employed only one tactic, send wave after wave of men straight at the enemy. This is due to Stalin's purging of the officer core in the 30's which resulted in the death of most of Russia's competent commanders. Also the soviets taking Berlin is nothing special, The Russians only captured Berlin because it is very close to Germany's eastern border.
The Germans had the best trained infantry men of the war.(PERIOD). They had a lot of time to train, and they had a lot of time to get experience(POLAND, FRANCE, BELGIUM, THE NETHERLANDS, DENMARK, and so on). The Poles gave them more of a fight than they were expecting. Frankly, Hitler was pissed when he found out how much equipement he lost in Poland. Appearantly, it's a real bitch staging a war and whatnot.
@jaymoe67 Germans actually used a severe restriction of the versailles treaty to their advantage. Their army strenght prewar was limited to 100.000 men. Every member of these forces was to enter a 12 year duty service, and in the end of this career, these men were all capable of teaching, training and leading recruits, like an uncomissioned officer. This made it easy for Germany, to inflate their army so fast without leading to a loss of quality, when war started.
That scene with James Caan behind those bushes hearing the enemy talking is so cool. He knows he has to make a break for it to save his friend's life. I nein sprecken zi Deutsche so I don't know what those Jerries are saying. Danke in advance for the spoof translations I'll get. The Allies found out how much they'd underestimated the German soldier during this assault. They were hard as nails.They did the same thing again in December: the battle of the Bulge.
@100imachristian The Russians did, we supplied them. The British did, we supplied them. The French did, we supplied them too. We did alot of fighting too, at Normandy we took on the worst beach , at Anzio we took on two of the three beaches. At Monte Casino we took on the lions share of the fighting. In market garden two of the three airborne divisions were US troops. And we stopped the Germans at the battle of the bulge, a battle that might have cost us the war. So fuck you.
@Socrates3141 Hindsight Its not that the US knew in advance that the bombing and shelling of the defenses of Omaha beach would fail, and they opted to take "the worst beach" anyway! The worst beach could have been any other as well, british or canadian losses would be the result, in fact other beaches resulted in only light casualties for the allies, so it could have happened on omaha. But then we would miss lots of hollywood movies bout it. I mean there are no movies bout sword beach, are they?
@100imachristian Wow you are insane. by the way the Russians took Berlin becuase Eisenhower made a decision to conceed it to them. Oh and losing 20 million people is not normally something people consider a great accomblishment but you do! Oh as far as Brits go, yeah the mass surender in Singpore real example of bravery all right.
@100imachristian... actually, in the book by Cornelius Ryan (which this movie is based on) this incident was 100% accurate. It was verified by both the surgeon and one of the orderlies present. I believe the Sgt. who this was based on (Eddie Dolan) was decorated for his actions.
@100imachristian Shut up. The U.S helped out and lost millions fighting the japs. Without them we probably would of lost, and by the way - I'm a brit.
@100imachristian Yes the Russians may have taken Berlin, but it didn't end the war. The USA lost millions fighting the Japanese, they fought in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, Switzerland and Germany, which shows they obviously did put in quite a bit of effort. We would not have won the war without the americans, nor would we have won without the russians, or the British.
@ross79745 The USA did not lose miilions of soldier fighting the Japanese ---what the hell areyou taking about? Maybe if the invasion of the homelands had ever taken place it might have gotten that high but not as things turned out. But you are correct that the USA carried the Pac War more or less on their own
@555paint Alright then, they lost millions fighting in all the countries they fought in, besides Russians charged into battle alot of the time, so what losses would you expect if you charged your men at an MG42 emplacement?
Americans used different tactics and fought for less time and a lot of the heavy equipment was deployed against the Russians.
@ross79745 Total USA deaths were somewhere in the vincinty of 1/2 million in all theatres. That isn't something to be ashamed of--that USA was able to achieve all of its objectitves w/o the kind of insane loses the russians took is a complement to USA. As far as why russians took so big hits-yes they engaged in human wave attacks but also Stalin in first years would not allow any retreats even when a position was hopeless--untis had to stand and die rather than live to fight another day.
@555paint Just for the record, USA lost just under 500.000 soldiers and a few civilians, USSR lost 20.000.000 soldiers and 10.000.000 civilians during WWll, both Europe and the Pacific. The US only fought 2 out of the 6 years WWll lasted in Europe, Russians took all 6 years and a lot more battles against a way stronger German Army. By the time US entered the theater, the Germans weren't as strong and big in numbers as in the earlier part of the war. It doesn't make sense to compare the 2.
@CdoMac Your record is strange; not one many historians find credible. 1. Yes Soviet casulitites were much higher than USA--that is what happens when you enter into an alliance with Hitler and then refuse to recognize reality for months. By the way a certain % of those Soviet deaths have to be attributed to deaths inflicted by the Soviets themsleves on the civilian pop and on their own army (mass executions etc.) not to mention the self inflicted wound or Stalin's prewar purge of the RA
@CdoMac 2, USA declare war on germnay an entered war for real in 1942. Germany surrendered in May 1945/ that is roughly 3.5 years not 2 you mention. The USSR was not formally in the war for 6 years as you say. Germany invaded Russia in June 1941 and again Germany surrendered in may 1945-that is roughly 4 years. (a little longer is you count their 3 day campaign against Japan) Prior to June 1941 the USSR was in a de facto alliance with Hitler...You may have heard about that....
@CdoMac@CdoMac 2, USA declared war on germnay and entered war for real in 1/1942. Germany surrendered in May 1945-that is roughly 3.5 years not 2 you mention. The USSR was not formally in the war for 6 years as you say. Germany invaded Russia in June 1941 and again Germany surrendered in may 1945-that is roughly 4 years. (a little longer is you count their 3 day campaign against Japan) Prior to June 1941 the USSR was in a de facto alliance with Hitler...You may have heard about that....
@CdoMac 3. once again i have to point out the USSR unlike the USA did not have to fight a strategic air war against germany; did not have to secure the Atlantic Ocean (Lend-Lease didnt just walk on water to the USSR; they did not have to supply both their own military and dozens of other countries as well; they didn't have to fight and deploy resources all over the globe; they didn't have to develop (nor could theyhave even had they wanted) the A bomb; and the list goes on and on
@555paint So you give the best arguments that the USA fought Germany only somewhat committed, being distracted by other things, while the soviet were fighting germany only with all their strenght. Whats your point then. The allies did not have to fight many diehard Nazis, the war in the west was rather civilized. Germans, when faced the option to surrender, would gladly surrender to the allies, not so to the soviets. Less pardon was given on the eastern front from both sides-higher casualties!
Just for the record, USA lost just under 500.000 soldiers and a few civilians, USSR lost 20.000.000 soldiers and 10.000.000 civilians during WWll, both Europe and the Pacific. The US only fought 2 out of the 6 years WWll lasted in Europe, Russians took all 6 years and a lot more battles against a way stronger German Army. By the time US entered the theater, the Germans weren't as strong and big in numbers as in the earlier part of the war. It doesn't make sense to compare the 2.
@555paint It is true, that russian units had to stand and die rather than live and fight another day. But you forget to mention that they defended major cities and industrial centers. The USA, if blitzed by a former ally, would have evacuated Washington NewYork LosAngelas SanFrancisco or others to retreat and reform at the great canyon? I think not. I think the USA would have fought for their major centers as much as the Soviets did, dont you?
@tomtom34b 1. i was just trying to make a few points to someone else who said that becuase the Red Army (RA) losses were so huge compared to USA it is indication of their 'greater contribution. I was saying big losses should be seen more as a failing by RA than an accomblishment and that one should recall--as u did--that a lot (not all) was self inflicted by Moscow: no tactical retreats, letting whole armies be destroyed in detail, purges that ruined the officer corps for years,
@tomtom34b 2: purges that indimited the RA and NKVD units whose sole purpose was to fire on their own trooops etc. (USA executed exactly one solider for desertion in the ENTIRE war vs. RA which executed soldiers for 'desertion' every few minutes. Point: a lot of the pain suffered by theUSSR was self inflcted on the RA by Moscow. In fact the RA wasn't even allowed to defend themselved on the frointer during the opening days of Barbarosa on orders from Stalin who didnt want to "provoke' Hitler....
@ross79745 actually the Americans lost around 500,000, and @555paint the ANZAC played a pretty big part in the Paccific, namely fighting in Borneo and Brunei
@black00dice Didnt say or imply that ANZAC and others played role in Pac War. The ? under dispute was USSR contribution vs. USA and some have downplayed USA role in WWII compared to USA and I was saying that USA had to fifght a global war and USSR's contribution to Pac War was minimum at best. Of course, if DownFall had ever taken place yes ANZAC and so on woudl have had a role but overall it would have been a USA affair.
@tomtom34b They did fight the Japanese in Manchuria. At the end of the war they launched a major offensive that took an area the size of Western Europe - in mountainous terrain no less. It was a really impressive operation but your right they didn't fight much in the Pacific area.
@ross79745 They didn't lose millions at all. Do some simple research. It will take a few minutes, but think how much less you will embarrass yourself.
@ross79745 No they didn't. Nobody fought in Switzerland. The country was neutral throughout the war. Also the US didn't lose a million men during the entire war. The Brits lost more than we did by a good margin. The US was the primary player in the Pacific but their were Allied forces there as well.
@ross79745 ... you really dont know a thing about history. yes the americans did a lot of work in WWII but they didnt even lose a million men in the civil war, the bloodiest war in US history. that number capped at above 600,000. The US gave the british the needed support to survive hitler's initial onslaught and through their combined efforts were able to beat the Nazi regime. one would not have been able to do it without the other.
@pureindian407 the us lost a million men in the us civil war not 600,000 is the number that died at the hospitals not the ones who were killed on the fields
@ross79745 The USA had the most people in their county of all county's in was,but did the less.
On D-Day the UK had like 600.000 soldiers, france had like 200-300.000 & the fucking Usa had only 300.000. Russia had the most fights with the germans, like Leningrad, stallinggrad, kiev, sebastopol, krim, kaukasus and wasn't afraid of die for his own county, the reason people think Usa is the hero of the war, is cuz everybody hate the russians, i'm a russian too, my grandfathers died for our freedom
@ross79745 i agree ;o and i believe that american industry was what provided the greatest help for the allies in terms or mass production of weapons, vehicles, food etc--sort of a backbone to re-stabilize the nations that had been fighting the war since the late 30's--like providing food and red-cross health/care packages in air drops etc. WWII established American industrial limits which is what made it feel so invincible after the war. for better or worse lol
glad you put those movies all who doesnt love ww2 are just some city kids or just some rich folks but we farmers like also im writing a ww2 storie you got me some great ideas thanks
Your entire premis is flawed. The definition of the word imagine is to concieve something that does not exist in reality. You cannot imagine something that you have experienced, because you wouldn't be imagining, you'd be remembering.
Imagination by definition is the practice of bringing something into reality that has not existed otherwise in your reality. To say "you cant imagine it because you havent felt it" is a contradiction of the meaning of the word.
I love this scene when the sarge is behind the lines to rescue his captain. I can imagine how the adrenaline pushes trough his veins when he stands there with his jeep only a stone-throw away from the jerries... Attenborough brings this feeling very good to the viewer... Great!
So what you are saying is that in order to imagine something, you have to go through it first? You need to be shot at in order to be able to imagine how it feels to be shot at. You need to have been in Siberia in order to imagine how cold it is in Siberia. You have to experience panic from being chased by a knife-wielding maniac to be able to imagine the feeling of panic as you are chased by a knife-wielding maniac...
Can you see how that kinda defeats the definition of 'imagination'? Moron.
No but I can still imagine the feeling of adrenaline rushing through your body, the fear. You can imagine whatever scenario you like under the right conditions. And as for nobody in my country being harmed in WWII bar the soldiers I guess London, Coventry, Aberdeen, Liverpool, Birkenhead, Birmingham, Swansea, Bristol, Manchester, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Plymouth, Hull, Portsmouth, Sunderland and Nottingham were never bombed by the Luftwaffe. I could go on but I've run out of room. Just stop now.
James Caan reminds me of my grandfather, who was also a Sergeant in WW2. I've read about the parts of Europe my grandfather was in and what he was doing.
I literally have no idea how he lived through 3 or 4 villages of house to house fighting, riding on tanks with no cover, forced marching through waist deep snow, swimming across freezing rivers under machine gun fire, or seizing dams and bridges before the Germans blew them to pieces.
rochskier 1 week ago
If anyone is interested,the incident with the sargent and colonal actually happened,
rockpig63 1 month ago
@BritishHistoryWWII considering that the P51 was the result of a BRITISH request....
the Spitfire, for all it's qualities (speed, maneuverability) suffered from it's short range. not as bad as the Messerschmidt, but the requirement that the fighter was needed for, Bomber escort, called for a fighter with the range to fly to Berlin and Back....and the Spitefire simply couldn't do it, upgrades or not.
and, for the record, the ROMANS can be thanked for English...
Soundwave3591 1 month ago
I see two ways how to explain why whole company of German soldiers did not hit the US GI. First: they are tremendously bad shooters or second: the movie is tremendously bad.
Lubomir57 3 months ago
You see 2:00??? Germans soldiers are alle idiots... That sucks
seralia1 3 months ago
@seralia1 hahahaha idiots
ReapersKOS 2 weeks ago
@100imachristian I'm so very glad this ignorant nimrod has closed his account.
twobluehorses 3 months ago
More on Lend Lease, American shipments of telephone cable, aluminium, canned rations, and clothing were also critical. by Wikipedia, @100imachristian facts over emotion. If you dislike Americans that's fine but don't refine history to fit your prejudice. Peace, love and blessings.
mosquito103 4 months ago
More on Lend Lease, Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.
mosquito103 4 months ago
facts of Lend Lease,The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).
mosquito103 4 months ago
@100imachristian Look up the Lend Lease program under the Roosevelt administration. Peace and love and blessings
mosquito103 4 months ago
@100imachristian how do you think Russia was able to take berlin so fast to end the war, i guess it certainly wasn't the tens of thousands of trucks we sent them after the Northern routes were cleared of harassments. Or the fact that the Americans and British bombed the living hell out of German industry. It also definetly wasn't our opening of a second front that cost the Germans almost every division on the western front, you know the 500,000 casualties the whermacht took in June-august 1944
matrin2 5 months ago
the fact is none of the allied nations could have taken germany single handely... if it wasnt for the 30 million red army soldiers bearing down on the werhmacht in the east, the brits and yanks would have been slaughtered at normandy....
timebandit71 5 months ago
The James Caan scenes are the worst part of this movie. They don't do anything for an otherwise decent story.
9toonarmy9 5 months ago
@100imachristian The director was British and this was made with a largely British cast and crew -- you knob.
Contractnik 5 months ago
@100imachristian Hollywood. But it's what we want to have happened.
paul4opus 6 months ago
@plotkin514 Actually dude, the Few (the RAF) changed the tide of the war in the Battle Of Britain. If the Luftwaffe had destroyed the RAF -which they outnumbered drastically- Germany would have taken Britain and changed the outcome of the war. And with the RAF doing most of their bombing at night, fighter escort was not as paramount as with the daylight raid by the USAAF. But nice to see you say that you "helped" instead of saying "we won it."
61 countries in ww2; it was a team effort.
MrComatost 6 months ago
@MrComatost Definitely a team effort. But our team came from a nice safe continent with 2700 miles of ocean between us and the war. Before that there was lend-lease. Without the USA, Germany wins. That DOES NOT discount the amazing courage and bravery of the British in particular and many others as well. But that is the very calculation of the GREAT man who inspired that courage--Winston Churchill (who was half-American).
Contractnik 5 months ago
The big myth: The USA won ww2. This myth was born out appearances. The allies had been fighting since 1939; the US since 1941. That's two years of unaffected industrial production. Nor was there a drain on her manpower. The US did not win the bloody war all by themselves.
And lets not forget ww1 when they showed up THREE years late. Oh well; maybe in ww3 they'll show up on time.
MrComatost 6 months ago
I see Sonny Corleone in this scene with James Caan.
Clonetrooper1139 6 months ago
Anyone who thinks their nation won WWII by themselves is a moron. i will say this to my countrymen in the US and I will say it to the Europeans who like to marginalize America's contribution to WWII. Both parties need to just shut their mouths and stop cheapening the sacrifice made by ALL in that war with your pointless bickering.
Shut up already!
Clonetrooper1139 6 months ago 4
@100imachristian When you run into some American who thinks the US won the war singlehandedly, feel free to tell them they are full of it. It's what this American does when he hears some Russian or Brit who says the same for their own country. But please try not to make blanket statements and assumptions about a whole country and how its people think -- unless of course you WANT to sound like a moronic racist idiot....
tjhoenecke 7 months ago
STOP arguing the lot of ya.... we all have a new common enemy now... its called THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Look it up...
Wake Up
sim0b 8 months ago
@sim0b Which one would that be? American, Nazi, Jewish just to name a few.
PROkiller16 8 months ago
"I'll blow your fuckin' head off" was the best actor in the movie.
BPECA1 8 months ago
@100imachristian You're also leaving out that Russia carried out sick experiments themselves, such as dropping early nuclear bombs on their own men, and also seeing exactly what happened when you fired a flame thrower through a tank's hatch.....
urbannibja123 9 months ago
i no that builing is by holten somewhere
TheNielsjuh1 10 months ago
Didn't the Soviets also kill retreating soldiers?
mphrdldn 10 months ago
@mphrdldn The soviets used, this is known for example in the battle for moskau, blocking detachments. NKVD troops would setup positions behind regular troops (a few miles), so the regular troops would not retreat so easily. This in fact turned out to let the troops in front fight harder and soldiers who were only lightly wounded, would not leave their post so easily.
tomtom34b 10 months ago
@tomtom34b This sounds like a justification for terror tactics employed by NKVD. Troops often retreated for very good reasons like ran out of ammo, no weapons to begin with, lousy leadership (often from the political officers), resentment of Moscow that had understandably built over the years, and hopeless tactical positions. By contrast USA executed exactly one soldier during whole of the war for desertion--yeah ONE (Brits probably none) Punsihment by RA was arbitrary and toatal.
555paint 10 months ago
@555paint I dont know what you mean with terror tactics. But you are aware that the russian soldier thats drops his ammo could claim he ran out and has good reason to retreat, in your army, moskau would have fallen, because every soldier would have given a mockery of a fight at best before retreating for "good" reasons.
tomtom34b 10 months ago
@tomtom34b as far as USA amry goes as I said several times the USA Army executed exactly ONE soldier for desertion during the entire war and even he would have escaped death had it not been for the Battle of the Bulge...because some unties of the USA Army had surrendered en masses Eisenhower was unnerved by the decline in discipline and ordered the execution to proceed. In general USA deseters were given seveal chances to return to their untis. I doubt Brits executed anyone.
555paint 10 months ago
@555paint terror tactics meaning NKVD blocking units opening fire on retreating troops, arbitrary executions, punishment details like clearing mine fields by marching their own troops through them...terror tactics. They were meant to terrorize the ranks and they did. Also: plenty of evidence exists of RA soldiers being sent into combat with no ammo or weapons early on in the war and then executions if they retreat. They were expected to eat German ammo up.
555paint 10 months ago
@mphrdldn Absolultely. NKVD had special units called blocking units that fired on Red Army troops who retreated even when they had run out of ammo or had no weapons to begin with. (Opening scene of Enemy at Gates depicts this practice) also Richard Overy's Russia's War documets it. Punishment were sevre and total in Red Army. Not just firing on own troops. Punishment units meant being forced to link arms and clear mine fields or make hopeless charges to eat up German ammo etc.
555paint 10 months ago
@mphrdldn As far as I know these terrorist practices only began to diminish as the Red Army leadership slowly began to assert its power against the party...example undercutting the power of the political officers etc. Only then did the worst of this stop but still throughout the war the Red Army ranks were subject to extreme terror from NKVD etc.
555paint 10 months ago
Thanks so much for uploading this wonderful movie. This scene with James Caen
and the doctor is so funny. He kept his promise to his captain. I wish Caen would have had a bigger part. I've only seen the captain in one other movie, The Dead Zone starring Christopher Walken. It's a really good movie also.
1916jutland 10 months ago
@100imachristian The Americans lost about 400,000 men in the war not millions. The Russians only lost millions of men because they employed only one tactic, send wave after wave of men straight at the enemy. This is due to Stalin's purging of the officer core in the 30's which resulted in the death of most of Russia's competent commanders. Also the soviets taking Berlin is nothing special, The Russians only captured Berlin because it is very close to Germany's eastern border.
gergthemerg 11 months ago
The Germans had the best trained infantry men of the war.(PERIOD). They had a lot of time to train, and they had a lot of time to get experience(POLAND, FRANCE, BELGIUM, THE NETHERLANDS, DENMARK, and so on). The Poles gave them more of a fight than they were expecting. Frankly, Hitler was pissed when he found out how much equipement he lost in Poland. Appearantly, it's a real bitch staging a war and whatnot.
jaymoe67 11 months ago
@jaymoe67 Germans actually used a severe restriction of the versailles treaty to their advantage. Their army strenght prewar was limited to 100.000 men. Every member of these forces was to enter a 12 year duty service, and in the end of this career, these men were all capable of teaching, training and leading recruits, like an uncomissioned officer. This made it easy for Germany, to inflate their army so fast without leading to a loss of quality, when war started.
tomtom34b 10 months ago
@tomtom34b Yep.
jaymoe67 10 months ago
Hey, wanna hear the most annoying sound in the world? 8:18 to 8:55
TechnicalJaguar 11 months ago
That scene with James Caan behind those bushes hearing the enemy talking is so cool. He knows he has to make a break for it to save his friend's life. I nein sprecken zi Deutsche so I don't know what those Jerries are saying. Danke in advance for the spoof translations I'll get. The Allies found out how much they'd underestimated the German soldier during this assault. They were hard as nails.They did the same thing again in December: the battle of the Bulge.
Clevinger67 11 months ago
@100imachristian The Russians did, we supplied them. The British did, we supplied them. The French did, we supplied them too. We did alot of fighting too, at Normandy we took on the worst beach , at Anzio we took on two of the three beaches. At Monte Casino we took on the lions share of the fighting. In market garden two of the three airborne divisions were US troops. And we stopped the Germans at the battle of the bulge, a battle that might have cost us the war. So fuck you.
Socrates3141 1 year ago
@Socrates3141 Hindsight Its not that the US knew in advance that the bombing and shelling of the defenses of Omaha beach would fail, and they opted to take "the worst beach" anyway! The worst beach could have been any other as well, british or canadian losses would be the result, in fact other beaches resulted in only light casualties for the allies, so it could have happened on omaha. But then we would miss lots of hollywood movies bout it. I mean there are no movies bout sword beach, are they?
tomtom34b 10 months ago
@100imachristian Wow you are insane. by the way the Russians took Berlin becuase Eisenhower made a decision to conceed it to them. Oh and losing 20 million people is not normally something people consider a great accomblishment but you do! Oh as far as Brits go, yeah the mass surender in Singpore real example of bravery all right.
555paint 1 year ago
@100imachristian... actually, in the book by Cornelius Ryan (which this movie is based on) this incident was 100% accurate. It was verified by both the surgeon and one of the orderlies present. I believe the Sgt. who this was based on (Eddie Dolan) was decorated for his actions.
cleekmaker00 1 year ago
@cleekmaker00 yes, ryan's book is a masterpiece of military history and this movie is pretty faithful to it.
555paint 1 year ago
Is that American Colonel person, Is that supposed to be Lt, Colonel Cole?
MisterSam1000 1 year ago
@100imachristian Shut up. The U.S helped out and lost millions fighting the japs. Without them we probably would of lost, and by the way - I'm a brit.
Isaacxilia1 1 year ago
@100imachristian Yes the Russians may have taken Berlin, but it didn't end the war. The USA lost millions fighting the Japanese, they fought in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, Switzerland and Germany, which shows they obviously did put in quite a bit of effort. We would not have won the war without the americans, nor would we have won without the russians, or the British.
ross79745 1 year ago 7
@ross79745 The USA did not lose miilions of soldier fighting the Japanese ---what the hell areyou taking about? Maybe if the invasion of the homelands had ever taken place it might have gotten that high but not as things turned out. But you are correct that the USA carried the Pac War more or less on their own
555paint 1 year ago 5
@555paint Alright then, they lost millions fighting in all the countries they fought in, besides Russians charged into battle alot of the time, so what losses would you expect if you charged your men at an MG42 emplacement?
Americans used different tactics and fought for less time and a lot of the heavy equipment was deployed against the Russians.
ross79745 1 year ago
@ross79745 Total USA deaths were somewhere in the vincinty of 1/2 million in all theatres. That isn't something to be ashamed of--that USA was able to achieve all of its objectitves w/o the kind of insane loses the russians took is a complement to USA. As far as why russians took so big hits-yes they engaged in human wave attacks but also Stalin in first years would not allow any retreats even when a position was hopeless--untis had to stand and die rather than live to fight another day.
555paint 1 year ago
@555paint Just for the record, USA lost just under 500.000 soldiers and a few civilians, USSR lost 20.000.000 soldiers and 10.000.000 civilians during WWll, both Europe and the Pacific. The US only fought 2 out of the 6 years WWll lasted in Europe, Russians took all 6 years and a lot more battles against a way stronger German Army. By the time US entered the theater, the Germans weren't as strong and big in numbers as in the earlier part of the war. It doesn't make sense to compare the 2.
CdoMac 11 months ago
@CdoMac Your record is strange; not one many historians find credible. 1. Yes Soviet casulitites were much higher than USA--that is what happens when you enter into an alliance with Hitler and then refuse to recognize reality for months. By the way a certain % of those Soviet deaths have to be attributed to deaths inflicted by the Soviets themsleves on the civilian pop and on their own army (mass executions etc.) not to mention the self inflicted wound or Stalin's prewar purge of the RA
555paint 11 months ago
@CdoMac 2, USA declare war on germnay an entered war for real in 1942. Germany surrendered in May 1945/ that is roughly 3.5 years not 2 you mention. The USSR was not formally in the war for 6 years as you say. Germany invaded Russia in June 1941 and again Germany surrendered in may 1945-that is roughly 4 years. (a little longer is you count their 3 day campaign against Japan) Prior to June 1941 the USSR was in a de facto alliance with Hitler...You may have heard about that....
555paint 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CdoMac @CdoMac 2, USA declared war on germnay and entered war for real in 1/1942. Germany surrendered in May 1945-that is roughly 3.5 years not 2 you mention. The USSR was not formally in the war for 6 years as you say. Germany invaded Russia in June 1941 and again Germany surrendered in may 1945-that is roughly 4 years. (a little longer is you count their 3 day campaign against Japan) Prior to June 1941 the USSR was in a de facto alliance with Hitler...You may have heard about that....
555paint 11 months ago
@CdoMac 3. once again i have to point out the USSR unlike the USA did not have to fight a strategic air war against germany; did not have to secure the Atlantic Ocean (Lend-Lease didnt just walk on water to the USSR; they did not have to supply both their own military and dozens of other countries as well; they didn't have to fight and deploy resources all over the globe; they didn't have to develop (nor could theyhave even had they wanted) the A bomb; and the list goes on and on
555paint 11 months ago
@555paint So you give the best arguments that the USA fought Germany only somewhat committed, being distracted by other things, while the soviet were fighting germany only with all their strenght. Whats your point then. The allies did not have to fight many diehard Nazis, the war in the west was rather civilized. Germans, when faced the option to surrender, would gladly surrender to the allies, not so to the soviets. Less pardon was given on the eastern front from both sides-higher casualties!
tomtom34b 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@555paint
Just for the record, USA lost just under 500.000 soldiers and a few civilians, USSR lost 20.000.000 soldiers and 10.000.000 civilians during WWll, both Europe and the Pacific. The US only fought 2 out of the 6 years WWll lasted in Europe, Russians took all 6 years and a lot more battles against a way stronger German Army. By the time US entered the theater, the Germans weren't as strong and big in numbers as in the earlier part of the war. It doesn't make sense to compare the 2.
CdoMac 11 months ago
@555paint It is true, that russian units had to stand and die rather than live and fight another day. But you forget to mention that they defended major cities and industrial centers. The USA, if blitzed by a former ally, would have evacuated Washington NewYork LosAngelas SanFrancisco or others to retreat and reform at the great canyon? I think not. I think the USA would have fought for their major centers as much as the Soviets did, dont you?
tomtom34b 10 months ago
@tomtom34b 1. i was just trying to make a few points to someone else who said that becuase the Red Army (RA) losses were so huge compared to USA it is indication of their 'greater contribution. I was saying big losses should be seen more as a failing by RA than an accomblishment and that one should recall--as u did--that a lot (not all) was self inflicted by Moscow: no tactical retreats, letting whole armies be destroyed in detail, purges that ruined the officer corps for years,
555paint 10 months ago
@tomtom34b 2: purges that indimited the RA and NKVD units whose sole purpose was to fire on their own trooops etc. (USA executed exactly one solider for desertion in the ENTIRE war vs. RA which executed soldiers for 'desertion' every few minutes. Point: a lot of the pain suffered by theUSSR was self inflcted on the RA by Moscow. In fact the RA wasn't even allowed to defend themselved on the frointer during the opening days of Barbarosa on orders from Stalin who didnt want to "provoke' Hitler....
555paint 10 months ago
@ross79745 actually the Americans lost around 500,000, and @555paint the ANZAC played a pretty big part in the Paccific, namely fighting in Borneo and Brunei
black00dice 1 year ago
@black00dice True they did; problem: those were not decisive campaigns. Ironically their greater contribution was in the Med theatre
555paint 11 months ago
@black00dice Didnt say or imply that ANZAC and others played role in Pac War. The ? under dispute was USSR contribution vs. USA and some have downplayed USA role in WWII compared to USA and I was saying that USA had to fifght a global war and USSR's contribution to Pac War was minimum at best. Of course, if DownFall had ever taken place yes ANZAC and so on woudl have had a role but overall it would have been a USA affair.
555paint 11 months ago
@555paint i would like to end this topic now, its 3 weeks old
black00dice 11 months ago
@black00dice I am not all that interested myself but i was replying to comments e mailed to me by u and others.
555paint 11 months ago
@555paint The soviet were not at war in the pacific, so why would they contribute to it?
tomtom34b 10 months ago
@tomtom34b They did fight the Japanese in Manchuria. At the end of the war they launched a major offensive that took an area the size of Western Europe - in mountainous terrain no less. It was a really impressive operation but your right they didn't fight much in the Pacific area.
colddrake80 7 months ago
@ross79745 They didn't lose millions at all. Do some simple research. It will take a few minutes, but think how much less you will embarrass yourself.
hangfire0352 8 months ago
@ross79745 Switzerland was not in the war...
googa29 1 year ago
@googa29 I never said it was, I meant they fought in Switzerland.
ross79745 1 year ago
@ross79745
There was no bullet fired in Switzerland during WWll.....................
CdoMac 11 months ago
@ross79745 No they didn't. Nobody fought in Switzerland. The country was neutral throughout the war. Also the US didn't lose a million men during the entire war. The Brits lost more than we did by a good margin. The US was the primary player in the Pacific but their were Allied forces there as well.
colddrake80 7 months ago
@ross79745 ... you really dont know a thing about history. yes the americans did a lot of work in WWII but they didnt even lose a million men in the civil war, the bloodiest war in US history. that number capped at above 600,000. The US gave the british the needed support to survive hitler's initial onslaught and through their combined efforts were able to beat the Nazi regime. one would not have been able to do it without the other.
pureindian407 3 months ago
@pureindian407 the us lost a million men in the us civil war not 600,000 is the number that died at the hospitals not the ones who were killed on the fields
50TNCSA 3 months ago
@ross79745 USA lost around 416,800 soldiers in the war not millions
LBUK2010 3 months ago
@ross79745 Who fought in Switzerland? The place hasn't been invaded since Napoleonic times.
twobluehorses 3 months ago
@ross79745 The USA had the most people in their county of all county's in was,but did the less.
On D-Day the UK had like 600.000 soldiers, france had like 200-300.000 & the fucking Usa had only 300.000. Russia had the most fights with the germans, like Leningrad, stallinggrad, kiev, sebastopol, krim, kaukasus and wasn't afraid of die for his own county, the reason people think Usa is the hero of the war, is cuz everybody hate the russians, i'm a russian too, my grandfathers died for our freedom
ilja96 6 months ago
@ross79745 They didn't. America lost around 500.000 in total. The Russians lost 30.000.000.
AmersfoortTristan 6 months ago
@ross79745 i agree ;o and i believe that american industry was what provided the greatest help for the allies in terms or mass production of weapons, vehicles, food etc--sort of a backbone to re-stabilize the nations that had been fighting the war since the late 30's--like providing food and red-cross health/care packages in air drops etc. WWII established American industrial limits which is what made it feel so invincible after the war. for better or worse lol
chidoriookami 4 months ago
In the doc's place, I would have pretended that the captain is alive, even if he was absolutely dead
Dimy761 1 year ago
sitting there with an m1 carbine with one mag and a whole lot of german soldiers damn that gotta make ya heart jump
nogetmeget1 1 year ago
After the jolting he took in the jeep, it is a wonder the Captain is still alive.
shanghaibenny2 1 year ago
glad you put those movies all who doesnt love ww2 are just some city kids or just some rich folks but we farmers like also im writing a ww2 storie you got me some great ideas thanks
wordlofwarfan 1 year ago
ross its me i whatch all your movies the next im going to whatch again is the dirty dozen
wordlofwarfan 1 year ago
@cod2online
Your entire premis is flawed. The definition of the word imagine is to concieve something that does not exist in reality. You cannot imagine something that you have experienced, because you wouldn't be imagining, you'd be remembering.
Imagination by definition is the practice of bringing something into reality that has not existed otherwise in your reality. To say "you cant imagine it because you havent felt it" is a contradiction of the meaning of the word.
You huge tool.
MsOperator0 1 year ago
@MsOperator0 thanks ms operator0
cod2online 1 year ago
james caan was a cool actor.
xwingclass 1 year ago
I love this scene when the sarge is behind the lines to rescue his captain. I can imagine how the adrenaline pushes trough his veins when he stands there with his jeep only a stone-throw away from the jerries... Attenborough brings this feeling very good to the viewer... Great!
BenBlauRecordings 1 year ago
@BenBlauRecordings Glad you enjoyed it!
ross79745 1 year ago
Comment removed
cod2online 1 year ago
So what you are saying is that in order to imagine something, you have to go through it first? You need to be shot at in order to be able to imagine how it feels to be shot at. You need to have been in Siberia in order to imagine how cold it is in Siberia. You have to experience panic from being chased by a knife-wielding maniac to be able to imagine the feeling of panic as you are chased by a knife-wielding maniac...
Can you see how that kinda defeats the definition of 'imagination'? Moron.
Blackjack030190 1 year ago
Comment removed
cod2online 1 year ago
No but I can still imagine the feeling of adrenaline rushing through your body, the fear. You can imagine whatever scenario you like under the right conditions. And as for nobody in my country being harmed in WWII bar the soldiers I guess London, Coventry, Aberdeen, Liverpool, Birkenhead, Birmingham, Swansea, Bristol, Manchester, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Plymouth, Hull, Portsmouth, Sunderland and Nottingham were never bombed by the Luftwaffe. I could go on but I've run out of room. Just stop now.
Blackjack030190 1 year ago
@Blackjack030190 sorry mate.. i didnt realise that you were english.. i respect your comment, i've learned a lesson.. Í'm realy sorry!
by the way. i'm coming to london in a view weeks..
cod2online 1 year ago
@cod2online That's ok, just think next time. And I've actually never been there myself. I'm Welsh. Hope you enjoy it!
Blackjack030190 1 year ago
@BenBlauRecordings i feel the sgt. (james caan) broughtthe feelingto the scene
ricker01100 1 year ago