Many, of course, note the problem that the tanks used in the movie were of a much later vintage, and were't an accurate representation of the tanks that would have been used. That's one of the better known incidents of the Battle of the Bulge, and why you wouldn't even mention it is beyond me. There's also no mention at all of General George Patton's 3rd Army dramatically saving the besieged Americans at Bastogne. Composites, perhaps, but there's no portrayal of anyone who actually fought in the battle. First is that all of the characters are just that - characters. But there are also a lot of problems with the historical accuracy of the film. The famous demand for the surrender of Bastogne, and the reply of the commanding American general to that demand - "NUTS!" - is accurate. The Germans were also woefully short of fuel, and had targeted an American supply depot which would have given them access to a huge amount of gasoline for their tanks. The Germans did, indeed, get troops disguised as American MPs behind the American lines, and they were able to cause confusion and chaos. It was the last significant German offensive of the war, intended to break through the Allied lines and re- capture the port city of Antwerp, Belgium - thus throwing Allied supply lines into chaos. It's not as star-studded (although there's a bit of cross over in the cast, most notably Henry Fonda.) Truthfully, though, this movie is nowhere near as good as "The Longest Day." It's supposed to be an account of The Battle of The Bulge, which took place in December of 1944. I'm guessing that "Battle of the Bulge" was an attempt to unofficially follow up on that movie. That was a very good movie with a star-studded cast. A few years before this was released, there was "The Longest Day" - a movie version of the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |