Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:28, 31 May 2006

Film Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Great Film

Might I say that I enjoyed this film quite a bit, dispite the overwelming disdain it has received from critics. The worst complaint anyone seems to be able to bring up is that the Russians had slightly British accents. Give me a break!

There are all kinds of movies where the actors are slightly out of tune with the characters. I've seen plenty of films about people from the Middle East where BLUE-EYED actors played the roles. I've seen Irish-accented Nazis and all kinds of other examples of this.

It's nice to finally see a movie about the Soviet front during World War II, one of the most interesting areas of the whole war. The Sovies lost 27 million people defeating the Nazis, and one reason I think that people hated this movie so much was because it showed that the defeat of Germany wasn't just an Anglo-American effort.

I'd change a few things, but trust me this is an entertaining movie that at least begins to show the savagry of the Battle of Stalingrad. -Blizzard1

Film vs. Reality

I enjoyed this film, but can't exactly rave about it. What I'd like to see here is some more detail on the differences between the film versus the actual events depicted in it. There are some vague references, e.g., to differences between the Soviet commissar & the German sniper and their historical counterparts, but little detail.

Hollywood "history" is often frustrating in its willingness to play fast and loose with historical fact. To my mind, a disservice is done to the audience and to history itself unless all the historically verifiable details are, so far as possible, accurate. Changing real facts around to fit the story is just plain wrong.

So, someone want to fill in the details? --63.206.94.39 19:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Here are just some of the inaccuracies:

• Soviet soldiers transported to the front in padlocked cars: in reality, train cars' doors were open so the soldiers could hop out in case of an air strike.
• NKVD machine-gunning retreating troops from behind: in reality, only 120 Soviet soldiers were executed during the 199-day battle by the NKVD.

I would be curious for the source of this, because that's not what Antony Beevor indicates in his book. On the other hand, the movie does mispotray the Soviet situation as overly desperate, ill armed etc. For instance, the Soviet's had a large amount of Artilery that was often much more troublesome for the Germans than the snipers were. MarcusGraly 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Soldiers being sent across the Volga without weapons/soldiers being issued one rifle for two men, etc: in reality, they were armed before being sent across.
• Soviet soldiers charging in "human wave" fashion: in reality, they used sophisticated street and house-to-house fighting techniques.
• Danilov denouncing Zaitsev for being in a relationship with a Jew: in reality, Soviet persecution of the Jews began some years after World War II and such remarks would have been considered treasonous during the war.

There are far too many more examples, ranging from small details to grossly insulting statements (such as the mother's quip about how her son Sasha would be better off with the Germans). I only listed the ones that contained blatant historical falsities. Kazak 03:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually many Red Army soldiers were equipped with nothing but the bare essentials. I had relatives and neighbors in the Red Army who said they didn't have any weapons to fight with during the battles.

That's not what is being discussed. No doubt many Soviet soldiers lacked appropriate weapons. The point is that they weren't sent across the Volga without weapons. That's stupid anti-Soviet propaganda.

How about including some of this in the article?

Kazak: I don't think Danilov was denouncing Zaitsev for being in a relationship with a Jewish person: he was denouncing Zaitsev for, I think, being a coward and not believing in the communist ideal. Or perhaps I'm thinking of another denounciation? And yes, such a proclaimation was strange and likely to be moderately treasonous: that's why the typist looked at him strangely as he was dictating the letter.

In addition, a couple of fairly important differences that I remember include the following:

• The real Koulikov survived the war. I wonder how he felt, seeing his character killed off in the movie,
• While Vasily and Tania were lovers during the war, their relationship ended because each person believed the other had died. By the time Tania found out that Vasily was alive, he had already married.
• Of course, the duel with Major König never happened. Major König himself (or the person he was likely based on, Colonel Thorvald, I think it was), was probably a fictitious character invented to increase Soviet morale (this is disputed).

--Deathphoenix 05:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this movie is practically the only Western-made movie of the Eastern Front, hence the inaccurate depictions of Human Wave attacks and being unarmed when crossing the Volga. The soldiers sent into Stalingrad over the Volga during the battle were armed: the supply dumps were on the Eastern bank of the Volga, as were the troops, it was difficult to get anything across the river anyway, so soldiers were armed before being sent onto barges.

However, in other areas of the campain (and the whole war), soldiers were sent into battle without weapons or ammunition: in Antony Beevor's book Stalingrad he states that a company of untrained Lieutenants were sent without weapons against German tanks. That's both Human Wave and weaponless right there, just outside of Stalingrad. So while it is strictly incorrect to depict that in a movie about Stalingrad, given the nature of the movie, a 'historical' movie featuring the Eastern Front, it's not surprising that typical Eastern Front sterotypes like human waves, commissars, 'No Retreat' policies, et cetra are depicted, especially considering up until 1943 they're largely true. Was Enemy at the Gates just one of many Eastern-Front movies made then the inaccuracies would be inexcusable, because Stalingrad was very different to other battles fought on the Eastern Front, notably due in a large part to the General, Chuikov.

In any case, a request should be put up to expand this article.

Film vs. Reality

I noticed many of the inaccuracies Kazak mentions. In addition:

• The soldiers sent to fight with only 1/2 equipped woith rifles. This happened - in 1915. In well known episodes during a period of munition shortages during WW1, some soldiers were sent on infantry attacks and told to scavenge rifles. I have never heard of this in WW2. I thought Soviet small arms caches were fully adequate. I am almost certain the film makers were drawing on the WW1 incident in writing this part.
• The soldiers were armed with Mosin Nagant rifles. In fact, Soviet infantry were far more heavily armed with SMG's, notably the tough and reliable drum magazine PPSh-41, which is shown to a limited extent in the film. It was far more effective than rifles in the close quarters house to house fighting of Stalingrad.
• The human wave attack is shown as completely wasteful of soldiers and totally ineffective at harming the enemy. Even if the Soviet command did not care about casualties, an attack like this was undesireable and harmful to their success in the battle. In actuality, the Soviets attacked and infiltrated in smaller, perhaps platoon sized units, to close with German forces, particularly at night time. The fighting was, famously, house to house, street by street.
• The Germans in the city were actually defeated by the armour, air and artillery encirclement battle around the city, which cut them off. But that is outside of the scope of the film.
• The 1993 German film "Stalingrad" showed the fighting more realistically (although it was not a very good film otherwise).

-User: Petroleum

Ummmm... Human wave attacks were in fact widely used by Soviet Army throughout the war. Human wave attack article talks about that. While it may not be pleasent to read about, it is in fact true. Please do not place that as a goof.

The article on human-waving says...

In the modern era, human-wave attacks are often, but not always associated with mass armies of untrained soldiers. When Nazi Germany attacked Soviet Union, the Soviets used the tactic against both advancing and entrenched enemy soldiers, using penal battalions or units of militia. Usually the Red Army soldiers were told to charge directly in a wide berth to strike every possible point in the German lines. In some battles the Soviets defeated the Germans after sustaining battle losses much higher than the German losses. Later in the war the usage of such tactics declined.

In Stalingrad the Red Army was too short on men to do such a thing. Let's avoid myths and stereotypes. Kazak 06:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your qoute does not prove that in Stalingrad human wave attacks were not used, at the same time proving that human attacks were indeed used by the Soviet Army. The goof goes out. If you persist with putting it back in it will become a neutrality issues.

This is completely arse-backwards. The claim was that the Soviet Union made extensive use of human wave attacks. Therefore the burden of proof rests on those who claim it. It is not necessary for people to disproof such a claim. Otherwise perhaps you'd like to disprove the statement that invisible pink elephants in fact run the country of Angola?

Just added neutrality dispute to the page. I am so tired fo the people who would like to portray Red Army in a World War II as a gentlemen's club. I hhave not removed the goofs this time, just asked to cite these astonishing pieces of information, such as only 200 people shot by their own troops. Somehow I doubt that barrier troops were documenting every single soldier shot.

It was no Gentlemens club, it was a real thing in a real world. And in the real world no one fights like that. It is a movie not a real thing. In the real world the soviets used advanced tactical house to house fighting. Just running forward like that is pointless everyone dies. It is just a cold war myth like so many other myths. If you want more details about how the fighting was read David Glantz book "Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941-1943 (2005) ISBN 0700613536" and also people should learn how to sign their post. (Deng 23:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

Could someone who's read the book resolve "In his book Stalingrad, historian Anthony Beevor suggests that, while Zaitsev was definitely a real person, the story of his duel with König is fictional." in this article, with "According to Anthony Beevor's book Stalingrad, some Soviet sources claimed that the Germans brought in the chief of their sniper school, Major Heinz Thorvald (recent fictional media has created the belief that his last name was König, and that therefore he was termed "Major König"), to assassinate Zaitsev." at Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev?

Goofs

"Danilov is a commissar throughout the whole movie, although in the Red Army this rank was removed on October 9, 1942. Moreover, when he meets Vasily, he introduces himself as "politruk". This was a different rank, equal to elder lieutenant, while commissar was equal to the rank of major. "

All political officers were usually referred to as "komissar" regardless of rank. So when people call Danilov that it's his job they're referring to, not necessarilly his rank.

Disputed Goofs

If you wish to restore a goof to the article, please first reply here with your corresponding documentary evidence for discussion.

• NKVD machine-gunning retreating troops from behind: in reality, only 120 Soviet soldiers were executed during the 199-day battle by the NKVD.

"One of the richest sources in the Russian Ministry of Defence central archive at Podolsk consists of the very detailed reports sent daily from the Stalingrad Front to Aleksandr Shcherbakov, the head of the political department of the Red Army in Moscow. These describe not only heroic actions, but also 'extraordinary events' (the commissars' euphemism for treasonous behavior), such as desertion, crossing over to the enemy, cowardice, incompetence, self-inflected wounds, 'anti-Soviet agitation' and even drunkenness. The Soviet authorities executed around 13,500 of their own soldiers at Stalingrad - equivalent to more than a whole divison of troops. The main challenge, I soon realized, was to try to balance the genuine self-sacrifice of so many Red Army soldiers with the utterly brutal coercion used against waverers by the NKVD special departments (which very soon afterwards became part of SMERSH - counter-espionage)."

"Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943", Antony Beevor, p xiii, Viking 1998

--Bhmildy 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Soldiers being sent across the Volga without weapons/soldiers being issued one rifle for every two men, etc: in reality, they were armed before being sent across.

"Those workers not directly involved in producing weapons for immediate use were mobilized in militia 'special brigades' under the commander of the 10th NKVD Division, Colonel Sarayev. Ammunition and rifles were distributed, but many men received a weapon only after a comrade was killed. In the northern industrial suburb of Spartakovka, badly armed worker militia battalions were sent into battle against the 16th Panzer Division with predictable results."

"Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943", Antony Beevor, p 109, Viking 1998

Here's a map used by the Germans at the time. Note the location of Spartakovka, at the extreme end of the German salient, on the western side of the Volga.

--Bhmildy 07:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• In the film, the slogans used by the Red Army are along the lines of "For Stalin", and "For our great leader". This was mostly biased to the view of Western powers at the time of Communist Russia. In 1942, different Russian slogans were used. Those were mainly war slogans, such as "We will overcome", "Death to Nazi occupants" or "Everything for the front, everything for victory".

Legislators in the city of Mirnyi in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic voted on 30 March to erect a bust of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in the city's Victory Square for the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II on 9 May, RIA-Novosti reported. Mirnyi Mayor Anatolii Popov said: "We could not ignore the request of participants in the Great Patriotic War. It's no secret to anyone that our fighters went to battle (with the slogans) 'For the Fatherland' and 'For Stalin.'" (link here)

--Bhmildy 07:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Soviet soldiers charging in "human wave" fashion: in reality, they used sophisticated street and house-to-house fighting techniques.

"An artillery corporal, on the other hand, who had worked for twenty-nine hours without a proper break, was in no doubt about a victorious outcome for the Wehrmacht. 'The Russians can shoot as much as they want, but we'll shoot more. It's a great pleasure when a couple of hundred Russians attack. One self-propelled assault gun is enough, and they all make a run for it.'"

"Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943", Antony Beevor, p 97, Viking 1998

--Bhmildy 04:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Prof Beevors books should be taken with atleast 15 buckets of salt and maybe a few fists of pepper. If you want a more onjective view by other britsh professors check out John Erickson and/or Richard Overy and if you want even more info checkout academic David Glantz. (Deng 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

You have not cited either of the sources that you reference. Neither have you substantiated your allegations about the quality of Beevor's scholarship. Article restored, per WP: Citing sources2.4: "Disputed text can immediately be removed entirely or moved from the article to the talk page for discussion," pending further discussion here.--Bhmildy 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yupp so here, (Deng 20:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

#Beevor's scholarship http://en.wikipedia.org/Antony_Beevor read under Criticism.

#That human wave fighting is not possible is supported by logic this has been argued above but if you want real books by real humans then read Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941-1943 (2005) ISBN 0700613536 and Companion to Colossus Reborn: Key Documents and Statistics (2005) ISBN 0700613595 in companion you will most likely see more about it. When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (1995) ISBN 070060717X is a good book to and Also Richard Overy In russias war adresses the matter.(Deng 20:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

The executions are correct but what antony does is take in to account all people killed during that time be it commen criminals or enemy fighters or anyone killed for any matter. (Deng 20:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

To access the slogans well then you would have tor ead much much more. (Deng 20:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

War of the Rats

The film "Enemy at the Gates", Is a screenplay of the book "War of the Rats" by David L. Robbins. It reflects the book "Enemy at the Gates" only in the fact that it takes place in Stalingrad. I have read both books and understand the confusion.

Motorfix 23:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed film articles
• WikiProject Film articles