This film's main story hinges on the tactically stupid decisions Bogart's one-dimensional character makes. All the other characters of various nationalities humbly agree to go along with the Americans, despite their better judgment (sound familiar?)!
Phippster
[deleted]
I felt sorry for the Germans when they get so thirsty they surrender. It's no fun being thirsty in the desert.
'I'll never forget whatshisname.
Who's that?
Bob.
Bob, who?
Bob vious.'
LOL... Not silly at all... The british could of stayed and been captured or killed. He made all the right decisions.. The american made the right decisions, just like we do today :P
shareRegardless of whether he made the right decision, I'm wondering why he was the one who got to make it, being only an NCO while Halliday was a captain. What, Gunn commanded the tank so therefore he got to call the shots...?
"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"
True, but Halliday was part of the medical corps. It is possible that he was less comfortable making more battle-condition type of decisions. Nothing against him, but a doctor might feel that way.
Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!
Well, you have to keep in mind that this movie is a mere remake of a Soviet 1937 movie "Trinadsat" (http://imdb.com/title/tt0028413/). As it says in the summary, "Sahara" was mostly intended to be a wartime patriotic propaganda movie, so they didn't care to spend time and come up with some original plot and just adapted one from an old Soviet movie. The Soviet movie was not bad. This one, as would be expected, is rather far from perfect, to say the least.
shareWhat are the tactical decisions you find so stupid? They seem extremely sound to me !!
shareProbably "holding out against a larger and better equipped enemy force." And for a well with no more water in it (until the end).
However, for what Gunn wanted to achieve, his decisions make perfect sense. Gunn's entire plan was to hold up von Falken's forces. As long as he could keep the Germans thinking the well still held water, they'd be too busy trying to take it to advance and attack the retreating British and American troops.
It was essentially a (mostly unspoken) suicide mission, with Gunn's preferred outcome seeming to be that he, Halliday and the others all die defending the empty well, whereupon the Germans realize they've been duped and likely all die of thirst.
If it hadn't been for the shell hitting the underground spring, everyone would've died, Allies and Germans alike. However, since Gunn and the others were willing to sacrifice their lives to buy the others time to retreat, his decision to stay and defend the well while continuing to fool von Falken made perfect tactical sense.
"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"
Having watched this movie over and over again, and being a huge fan of it, I am quite, to say the least amused by some of the posters here making loose remarks without even knowing much about the movie or the time frame the movie was made in.
Yes, you are entitled to have an opinion, but to trumpet that opinion as the best judgement seem a bit too much. This is a movie made in 1943, by a director with a fraction of the technical expertise available today to make an outdoor war movie. Before insulting, can't you see how much work would have gone behind such a work a reality? And to make it as close to reality it looks now? I have been stuck in desert once (I live in the middle east) with our 4x4 running out of fuel 7 yrs ago and I could empathise how we felt while wandered looking for a mobile signal.
This is a fabulous work, with brilliant character developments and intelligent plot devices (e.g. the betting game comes to mind) and as for the decisions Bogie made, they maybe far from perfect but its "stupid" to sit today in our comfort of our homes, and call it "stupid". Healthy criticism is very well acknowledgeable but plain, loose taunts to insult a great work of art, based on pretty unsound logic, is quite deplorable.
I hope this wasn't directed at me, since I defended Gunn's decisions. I never criticized it. I did however wonder why he got to make the choice to stay, despite Halliday outranking him, but this is my only complaint. But like I said, since it was all about wasting von Falken's time, Joe Gunn's actions make perfect sense. People can agree or disagree on whether it was a justified course of action, but that's beside the point; he achieved what he wanted to achieve, so it isn't "stupid."
"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"
Sorry, I accidentally replied to you. I meant to reply OP and a few other guys criticising the film loosely and starting to either showcase or defame their countries.
I do not agree, though on Gunn's leadership doubts. I think Gunn had shown much better skills as a leader (being astute and to take a leading hand in a crisis). I also believe in crisis situations, your ranking shouldn't stand in the way of finding a practical solution. Gunn seemed a better leader than Halliday, who in turn was quite humble and kind hearted to go with the flow. Just my POV.
Does Eisenhower being in charge at D-Day sound familiar? Where would the world be right now if America hadn't taken the lead in making certain decisions during the war?
I think your opening and final statements were based on a stupid decision!
Patrick of Seattle
The invasion would use allied air, naval and land forces. A truly combined operation, one American man who had overall control (his nation having remained neutral till the previous year selling arms to both allied and axis powers) doesn't mean America spear-headed anything, remember he was appointed by the Anglo-American (incl. Canada) alliance.
http://www2.thny.bbc.co.uk/london/weather/d_day_weather.shtml
http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm
If you think D-Day was the be all and end all of WWII then you are very niave, the war was pretty much won on the eastern front, we just exploited the weakened Nazi war machine. I'm not trying to downplay the allied role but we didn't win the war, we rode on the back of a vengeful Russia.
If MY Answers Frighten You My Friend Cease Asking Scary Questions
Excuse me, but I don't think I understand you. Are you saying that the U.S. was selling arms to the axis in June, 1943 (which would be a year before D-Day)? I find that a bit odd, considering that the U.S. had declared war on the axis nations in Dec 1941. Especially since American merchant mariners had been dying keeping England fed as early as 1939; that the U.S. had given (technically leased) destroyers outright. (And there were fifth columnists in Britain as well as in the U.S.)
Anyway, I thought we were all on the same side. And still are.
No I didn't say that, I said that during the war American companies did deals with Hitler. That's not really the point though I just wanted to point out that the US didn't win D-Day and subsequently the war on there own, and that American leadership wasn't this huge decisive key to winning WWII, as the poster assumed.
I'm not trying to get in a Historical debate, I respect America and hell as long as its the most powerful nation in the world, China isn't which is fine by me (No offence to the Chinese but we as westerners benefit far more with the US in the top spot than with some eastern powers with a history of censorship and human rights abuses that make Guantanmo Bay look like a day care centre) I just get pissed off the Americans believe that:
1) They saved everyone
2) That their intervention single handed on the war
3) American spear-headed executed and won D-Day all on their own (same with N. Africa and all the others theatre's of war)
There were: English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, U.S, Canadian, French, Australian, Belgium, Czechoslovakians, Greeks, Dutch, kiwis, Norwegians, polish and Australians involved in D-Day alone, everyone one of them fought and died for our freedom lest we forget.
If MY Answers Frighten You My Friend Cease Asking Scary Questions
[deleted]
I'm not disputing America's help, but at the same time Britain, mainland Europe and the majority of their colonies had been fighting the Axis at its most powerful, (when no other nation in the world were even close to their military capabilities) three years before America stepped in to help.
Were it not for the French Resistance, Germany’s grip on France and subsequently mainland Europe would have been much tighter,
Were it not for the British victory at ‘The Battle of Britain’ The Axis may have conquered Britain and had the perfect springboard to attack North America.
Were it not for huge serge by Russia to drive the Axis out of Eastern Europe and smashing through to Berlin, perhaps millions more allied casualties may have occurred.
Were it not for the German hierarch squandering much needed resources on the annihilation of the Jewish, gypsy, Homosexual population, the Nazi war-machine may have totally ‘Blitzkrieged’ the world into a single fascist entity.
Were it not for the forward thinking and strength of Winston Churchill, the West may have gladly let Germany carry on its plans, after all, it was merely imperialism…
“The U.S. did make the difference in the War, and that is a fact like it or not.”
If you are an ‘expert’ in History you will realise that it is very much subjective and any ‘what if’ assumption can never be fact. I have a friend who teaches History at Oxford and he believes that America’s role is largely overplayed and would argue all the above reasons plus hundreds more events, flukes, intricacies and obscurities that contributed to the fall of Nazi Germany.
If MY Answers Frighten You My Friend Cease Asking Scary Questions
Wasta
Not going to get in a flame war with you.
But before the USA entered the war we were sending tons upon tons of munitions, food, tanks, trucks, airplanes, fuel, etc, to Great Britain and Russia. Across the Atlantic.
Yeah, and U-571 was a little phoney.
Hey, it was just a movie. Watch the History Channel if you want accuracy!
Were it not for American banks sending messages about convoys and profits thereof to their subsidiaries in Europe (which the Germans then read and acted)the Battle of the Atlantic might of ended quicker without such a loss of life and material.
shareDear Wasta69: You waste-a-my-time.
If not for Winston Churchill and the Americans the British would be happily speaking German today.
Not really johnrupertg. The Germans had shot their bolt, so to speak, by the end of the battle of Britain. The British were in no danger of ever speaking German after that. Now defeating Hitler, that would have been a different matter. Would have been a stalemate really, at sea and in the air with nothing really on land except in the Med. And raids of course.
shareThe U.S. sold weapons to both sides???
Do Tell.
I recall "lend lease" to the allies, but selling guns to the Geramns isn't in any history book I have ever read (I read a lot of them). If you are referring to the common trade actions between the U.S. and Japan...yes the U.S. did sell things to Japan, all raw materials, not weapons. Nice try but no cigar on this one.
The Asian side of the war with Imperial Japan was where I think the US really made a difference.
Comparatively, it can be argued that the outcome of the war in Europe was decided before the US got involved. All we did there was help hasten the inevitable - Nazi Germany was doomed the minute Hitler decided to try to fight Russia, Hitler's plans to (eventually) invade and conquer North America notwithstanding. We did not face Germany in tip-top condition; we fought already battle-wearied troops, essentially a repeat performance of our role in World War I.
So in answer to your question, the outcome in Europe would've likely been the same - the Nazis would've been defeated by the Soviets. The only difference is they likely would've taken Britain first. But they'd have lost to the Russians long before being able to set their sights on America.
The bigger question is what the outcome in Asia would've been if we hadn't gotten involved. I think we played a much larger role there than in Europe. Of course, someone better versed in history is welcome to prove me wrong.
"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"
When you are the leader, you have to make the best decision at the time. Sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but at times some kind of decision has to be made. Those who do so alwayds face the ridicule of those who think otherwise but did not make the decision. It's kind of heckler's veto of sorts,but at times that is what happens. The US had the bulk of materials there and they were following orders. The Professor wanted to do otherwise and go into the wrong direction.So they did not have the better judgement.They also did not humbly agree, they expressed their concerns and fears and decided that they had to do what was suggested.So I think your conclusions are very wrong here. Somebody had to assume leadership or they would have been lost, killed or captured for sure.
sharePeople really get bent out of shape at movies. I hear it constantly the dogging on the Americans being good in American movies. So the French don't do it in their films? The Germans in theirs? If this movie was made by the British you're saying the British wouldn't have been in charge and everyone wouldn't have gone along with them against their better judgement? Get over it. Anyone who makes a movie is going to slant it to their views. It's not an American thing.
shareI agree with that, but I don't agree with history being changed for it - U-571...!
Anyway, this movie was done in 1943, it was a feel good film for the Americans. To read too much into it wouldn't be right. Movies then were a tool to gee up the nation. You could pick at the Germans wearing the larger FIRST World War helmets if you want. And just how many Americans WERE there in the Western Desert? Apparantly they were there, but I've never heard of them fighting with the Desert Rats.
It's just 1943 feel good film which is still worth playing today. Didn't think a great deal of James Belushis remake though.
[deleted]
They met at Kasserine Pass.
shareBah. It's a movie, and a pretty good one. It is an uplifting bit of propaganda for an American audience of the time. It's not supposed to be an ageless commentary on our place in the world, which at that time was both a very different place and a very different world.
I think to castigate its "messages" from what's gone on in the 60+ years of the planet's social and political history and [r]evolutions is folly.
Hell, we were even still pals with the French, back then. C'est la guerre.
What I had in mind was boxing the compass.share
Pretty much anything produced during a war is a lie. You don't go to the movie "Sahara" for ANY kind of accuracy. (If you did that you'd have to come up with something like a small detachment of Rommel's men capturing a large group of Montgomery's men!)
The art of films is that we go to Sahara to believe in 'Bogey'.
For 'some' accuracy there are plenty of postwar films like "Patton", "Das Boot", "No Man's Land"
And yeah U-571 was pretty 'dodgy'. But that's for THEIR on-line forum.
I think the original poster was referring to the tactical decisions the group makes, where Bogart's character is seemingly in charge.
Bogart being in charge is actually addressed in the film, where one of the British soldiers points out that they have their own officer with them, and he should be the one giving the orders.
The British officer -a captain- points out that he's a medical officer (i.e. an army surgeon). He's not a trained combat officer and thus isn't qualified to make tactical decisions about combat situations. He points out that Bogart's character is an experience career soldier, as well as the ranking non-commissioned officer present. He explains to his men that he and Bogart will confer on what to do, but he feels that Bogart is the one with more training and experience in these matters, so he'll defer to his judgement.
Now, if the British officer had been a combat officer (i.e. infantry, armour, even artillery), he would likely have assumed tactical command of the group.
We know that this is clearly a propagandnda film, but it does have some historical points. Also, watch out what you hear and see on the History Channel, they have alot of inaccuracies, i.e. talking about the Grumman F6F Hellcat and showing pictures of Republic P-47B Thunderbolts.
1) The British were defeated in the battles around Gazala. This caused the retreat to the El Alamein line and the fall of Trobuk which is the time period of the movie. British armor and South African infantry units were on the southern flank fighting against the Italian and German positions. Rommel was calling for an agressive pursuit of the retreating Allied forces. Axis forces were low on supplies as well. The holding of the well would have been a tactical decison with startegic results, just as the Sgt. Gunn (Bogart) wanted to do. Just remember "for the want of a nail" proverb and substitute water for the nail.
2) There was a small detachment of American tankers at the Gazala battles getting battlefield experience. I do believe that they were using the M3 Grant from British lendlease stocks which is a slightly different tank from the M3 Lee that Lullabelle was. Just a minor point in my opinion. It was easier just to send the men over to use similar equipment already on hand. The difference is the turret shape. US forces didn't normally use the Grant.
3) Technically, Sgt. Gunn wasn't the ranking NCO there. The Somali Sergeant Major Tambul was (Master Sergeant is lower than Sergeant Major), but since he was a colonial soldier "the white man's burden" comes into effect. I do agree about the rationale of the officer handing tactical command to Bogart's character.
4) True fantasy would have been hitting that German fighter with the 37mm turret gun. It wasn't fast enough, but one hit from it would have destroyed the fighter, no matter where it hit.
I think that before some comments are made certain people had better bone up on their history. As for Gitmo, no mistreatment of prisoners has happened. if anything, the prisoners have gained weight and been treated pretty fairly. get your facts, straight, Homer.
shareI want what you're smoking sawyertom
share