michaelds204
I suppose you didn't like Saving Private Ryan either since it didn't involve any historical fact besides the opening.
The characters in Enemy at the gate are all based on real people, so what if its not historically accurate? Its a movie, its ment to be entertainment not education.
The Writers and Director of "Saving Private Ryan" actually used some time to do research about the subject of their film(at least that is what I think), the Americans landing in Normandy were not carrying 19th century Rifles and not advancing in line formation toward the German Machineguns with Officers holding swords in their hand. Of course this movie was made by Americans about Americans, there is going to be bias in favor of the American characters and negative bias against the Germans.
The Writers and Director of "Enemy at the Gates" did little or no research about the subject of their film, and this is very obvious to someone familiar with the history of the Battle of Stalingrad. The Writers it seems flipped through the pages of the book with the same name and used several paragraphs from that book as a foundation for their story. They extracted some names and then filled the empty space with a lot of nonsense. "Nonsense" can be understood as garbage, rubbish, BS, bollocks, etc.
The main "real person" of this film wrote a book about his experiences in the battle. His(Zaitsev's) book("There Was No Land Beyond the Volga: Notes of a Sniper") has ZERO similarities to the story of this film. Indicating nobody involved in the project even opened his book. There were many interesting people mentioned in his book, and a film based on his book would have been quite "entertaining", but at the same time it would not have been insulting as this film was(to my relatives who fought as members of the Soviet Military during the war).
gilbere71 Hardly insulting is it? its just a movie that you personally didn't like. as for historical fact.....how many Hollywood movies have you seen that were historically true in every aspect?
Would you like a list of the reasons this movie is insulting? Short list:
1. Lieutenant General Chuikov - the commander of the Soviet 62nd Army in Stalingrad, he was promoted and was involved in the Battle of Berlin. Khruschev never commanded anything in Stalingrad. Not insulting?
2. Zaitsev was an educated 27 year old Accountant who had been serving in the Soviet Navy for 6 years before volunteering to serve in the 284th Rifle Division, he was a Sergeant, something not mentioned in the film. In fact he is shown as some kind of illiterate sheep herder. Not insulting?
3. The 284th Rifle Division fought until the end of the battle after which it received the status of a veteran Guards Division which fought until the end of the war, in the film no organized Military unit exists, just a mob of unarmed men which is destroyed within minutes. Not insulting?
4. The overall lack of Military organization in the film. The Soviet Military in 1942 was like all major Militaries of its time. There was an organized hierarchy from Private to Marshal. Zaitsev himself was a Sergeant, and was promoted to Lieutenant at the end of the battle. In the film there are no ranks, only vague "Commissars". Wide use of the word was actually common in German propaganda during the early part of the war, saying that Soviet soldiers must kill all "Commissars". In reality this rank after 1939 was assigned to Officers who were assistant commanders in Soviet Military units, and here there was also a hierarchy from Battalion, Regiment, Brigade, Division, and Corps Commissars. None of this is explained or shown, rank structure has no meaning in this film. Not insulting?
SkyMarshall7 As a human being I am offended by the Soviets in this movie... Where are cold blooded murderes who were going hand to hand with Nazis during initial occupations? Where are mass rapes? Where is disrespect for human life? Soviets were even worse then Nazis... After WW2 ended they had their own massacres of Jews. Screw the Russians and their *beep* militarisam...
Do you consider yourself to be "more human" than other humans? Excuse me, who exactly was it that was going "hand in hand" when they negotiated with Hitler and Mussolini in 1938? Who allowed Hitler to occupy Czechoslovakia and capture its Military Industry expanding the capacity of the Wehrmacht(many of the Panzers that invaded France were made in Czechoslovakia)? Who allowed the Fascists to take over Spain(when Soviet volunteers were fighting them)? Why did the French and British not invade Germany when it attacked Poland?(most of the German Military was concentrated against Poland and Western Germany was almost defenseless)
Both the British and French Governments were hoping Hitler would invade the USSR after invading Poland, they did not care about Poland. They were hoping that Hitler would trap himself in WW1 style Trench Warfare from the Baltic to the Black Sea and this kind of war would continue for several years. The Soviet Government could not allow this, at the time the Soviet Military was fighting the Imperial Japanese Army in Mongolia. The USSR could not win a 2 front war against the major Military Powers of Europe and Asia. In 1938 the Soviet Government offered Czechoslovakia, the British, and the French to attack Germany and remove Hitler from power, the British and French rejected this offer. In 1939 a similar offer in the Summer of 1939 was rejected, and the British even threatened retaliation against the USSR.
The USSR was the last Major Power in Europe to negotiate with the Nazi Government. Poland signed a Non-Aggression Pact with Nazi Germany in 1934. Afterwards the Polish Military participated in the attack on Czechoslovakia, and there were suggestions from the Polish side to attack the USSR with the help of Nazi Germany. Poland was far from a "peaceful" country. When it was re-created in 1918 the first action was to invade Russian territory, they captured Western Ukraine and Western Belarus during the Russian Civil War. These were the territories re-captured by the Soviet Military in 1939 after Germany invaded Poland, and after the Polish Government abandoned the country.
As for "mass rapes". Much of the "mass rapes" myth comes from German Propaganda, it was projection by Goebbels of crimes made by the Nazis against Russians on the Soviet Military. That does not mean that there were no soldiers in the Soviet Military with low morality, after all more than 300 thousand former criminals fought in the Soviet Military, including Penal Companies. I don't deny there was violence against civilians by these kind of people, but "mass rapes" by the Soviet Military are a propaganda myth.
And if you are suggesting that in the middle of battle(especially on Soviet territory during the Battle of Stalingrad) that Soviet soldiers have nothing better to do than rape someone then you are highly delusional.
As for "worse than Nazis", yet again proves your are either delusional, or highly influenced by Russophobic and Anti-Communist Propaganda of the Cold War period(when Exaggeration of Communist "Crimes" reached levels of 10 times the actual number for political purposes). The War started by Hitler killed more than 40 Million people(including 11 of my family members) and brought suffering to more than 200 Million, it is impossible to be "worse". Exactly where is this "massacres" nonsense coming from? People with a Jewish background enjoyed expanding opportunities in Science, Literature, and Politics during the period of 1917-1991. As for Militarism - maybe you would like to compare the Wars started by Western Nations to the USSR or Russia in the last 100 years.
"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the Kalashnikov!"
reply
share
AKalinoff
15 years ago
kenneth-r-close-1
Enemy At The Gates" is a superb portrayal of the battle of Stalingrad. Why? Because it reduces the most horrendous battle of the greatest war in history to the very essence of what warfare is all about: one man trying to kill another. It really is that simple.
The movie was based on the 1999 best-selling novel, "War Of The Rats" by David Robbins. I suggest you read the novel to gain a better understanding of history before slamming the movie. Hollywood produces only a handful of excellent movies each year, and this was one of them.
I have written a novel's worth of comments on this film and why IT IS NOT a "superb portrayal" of the Battle of Stalingrad, which was far more complex than some people believe(the Mechanized Offensive that encircled the Axis Forces in Stalingrad and the Soviet Night Bomber raids against Axis positions that are not even hinted).
The movie is misleading. The real Zaitsev killed or wounded at least 11 Axis Snipers. The movie makes it seem like "Konig" was the only enemy Zaitsev faced for most of the battle, the real "duel" lasted 4 days.
I do believe this film is based on several paragraphs from the book "Enemy at the Gates". Most(95%) of the film is fiction.
[email protected]I think to understand the film you need to understand what the director is trying to do .
He is telling a story based on fact , and also explaining the Battle of Stalingrad to people cannot conceive of it .
Look at the treatment of Russian Conscripts
Look at the ruthlessness of Political Officers
Look at the Efficent ferocity of the Trained German Troops
Look at the steel determination of Kruschev and Stalin .
the Battle was the greatest of all time , where an unbeaten German Army was surronded and starved into submission .it was a fight to the death , to the victor the spoils .
The director conveys all this in his interpretation by showing us the story of the duel between 2 snipers
personally I consider the first hour and half of EAG as the best war film of all time , I am not keen on the love Triangle , and I dont like it that the German Hanged the boy for spying , as it was a bit too cruel .
I don't know I felt the Director was trying to insult my relatives who lived and fought in that war. He is telling a "story" based on stereotypes and fiction.
1. Here is something many Westerners don't know
MILLIONS OF SOVIET CITIZENS INCLUDING MEN AND WOMEN VOLUNTEERED TO FIGHT AGAINST THE NAZI INVADERS including Vasily Zaitsev. He did not have to go to fight in Stalingrad(he was already serving in the Soviet Navy), HE WANTED TO GO AND FIGHT. He was a Volunteer - calling each Soviet Servicemen a "Conscript"(suggesting only forced service in the Military) is insulting, like calling all Russians "Peasants". Westerners seem to think that only their Citizens would want to fight for their country, while others(especially in countries with a Socialist Government) must always be "conscripts".
2. I have talked about this a Million times.
THE "POLITICAL OFFICERS" IN THE FILM ARE CARICATURES, THEY ARE A MANIFESTATION OF ANTI-COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA IN THE WEST - THEY NEVER EXISTED IN THIS FORM! Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, Colonels, and Generals were Officer ranks in the Soviet Military. They were STANDARD ranks as of 1942. A serviceman had to have a certain amount of experience, training, and education to advance in the Soviet Military. Leadership skills were required, the idiots in the film would have never even become Lance Corporals.
THERE WERE NEVER ANY MASS SUMMARY EXECUTIONS(as shown in the film) especially with the shortages of manpower in the Soviet Military in 1942. Officers that pointlessly wasted the lives of their men would be arrested by the NKVD(Internal Security Ministry).
3. The "efficiently ferociously trained" German soldiers had numerical advantage. In September 1942 they had more than 100 thousand men(in the 6th Army) and the Soviet 62nd Army that had to defend the city of Stalingrad had less than 60 thousand men. Even with this the Axis(more correctly - some of the early assaults against the city were made by the Romanian 20th Infantry Division) never captured the city because of the discipline and organization of Soviet Officers(real not fictional caricatures) that were able to use every soldier and piece of equipment under their command.
4. Neither Stalin nor Khruschev were directly involved in the battle. The only place Khruschev had been was the Headquarters of the Stalingrad Front(Army Group) east of the city(he had arrived in the city before the battle from Ukraine where he had been the local chief of the Communist Party). He was a Bureaucrat, a Government Minister and High Ranking member of the Communist Party, he did not command anything. The commander of the Stalingrad Front was Colonel General Yeremenko, the commander of the 62nd Army was Lieutenant General Chuikov. Neither of which was mentioned in the film.
5. The "unbeaten German Army" had already been beaten near Moscow a year earlier(December 1941) and was forced to retreat, Hitler re-focused his attacks against the south after this defeat.
"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the Kalashnikov!"
reply
share
CaptainMazda
15 years ago
AKalinoff is the only intelligent poster—myself excluded—in this thread. I respect his ability to argue against these retards that firmly believe this film was an accurate portrayal of the Battle of Stalingrad.
The rest of you retards can go back to watching '24'.
reply
share
eYeDEF
14 years ago
@AKalinoff:
I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for the very informative posts that you provided. I also want to provide you some reassurance that intelligent American audiences expect that Hollywood renditions of historical events to be mostly fictionalized mythology. While watching this film, a lot of it was just too preposterous to be anything close to historically accurate. Particularly the disorganization of the Soviet military effort was especially perplexing.
But after watching a film like this, it does greatly motivate me to learn about the real thing, which is a beneficial consequence of films like this. And its posts like yours that I look forward to reading; where great care is taken to debunk the mythology and separate the fact from fiction. I'm sorry that you and so many of your countrymen felt so insulted by this, and I absolutely understand your POV. But I still feel there is a good deal of truth to the argument that this film does portray the Soviets during WWII in a heroic light; far different than the evil cold war villains that so many Americans for so long were conditioned to believe. And the fact that this movie does this is at least a start to breaking down those old stereotypes and begin the process of fostering a greater understanding of the world for many of those those that will watch this film.
Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid.
- Kin Hubbard
reply
share