History vs Cinema

[Brian G Turner]

IIRC, in Speer's autobiography, he basically lambasts Goering as having no real plan for the Luftwaffe and allowing it to become increasingly undeveloped and therefore ineffective as the war progressed.

 

[BAYLOR]

IIRC, in Speer's autobiography, he basically lambasts Goering as having no real plan for the Luftwaffe and allowing it to become increasingly undeveloped and therefore ineffective as the war progressed.

During the first world war , Goering was ace second only to the Red Baron Manfred von Richthofen . He may have been a war hero in WW I but, that did not mean he have the leadership skills to run an organization like the Luftwaffe. He wasn't a particular good or effective leader nor was he competent military strategist. Also, he had morphine addiction and other health issues which probably further eroded what meager skills and effectiveness that he did possess . In effect , he was the worst possible choice to run the Luftwaffe . Germany was never winning the Battle of Britain with him in charge.

 

[BigBadBob141]

Lets face it most of the top Nazis were idiots, thank goodness, there was an allied plot to kill Hitler, but he was doing so much harm to the German war effort with his stupid orders and ideas ( he thought he was a military genius, he wasn't ) that they finally decided to let him live as he was doing far more harm alive than would possible be inflicted if he was killed.
A lot of Goering's judgement was probably effected by his morphine habit which he picked up I think after being injured in a car accident in the 1920s.
The Spitfire was a great plane and constantly evolving, there were over twenty-four marks, I think the clipped wing version was for ground attack, there was also an extended wing version with a pressurised cabin for high altitude work and in some the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine was replaced by the more powerful Rolls-Royce Griffin engine, these were used to chase down V1 pulse jet powered flying bombs, and don't forget the lady engineer who solved the Merlins problem of cutting out during negative gee maneuvers because it had a float carburetor instead of direct fuel injection which the Me109s had.
As planes go it was excellent for photo reconnaissance ( one photo recon pilot based in Malta flew so low over an enemy harbour that when he got back the ground crew found a ships ariel wire wrapped around his tail wheel ) plus don't forget the Seafire, a carrier based version the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm used with great success, but to be honest the bulk of the work carried out in the Battle of Britain was by the Hurricane, three out of five enemy planes shot down were by Hurricanes if I remember rightly, who had the very important job of going after the bombers ( Do17s, He111s and Ju88s ) while the Spitfires engaged the escort fighters ( Me109s and Me110s ), if we could have won without the Spitfire is very debatable but it sure as hell helped having it at the time, and don't forget Spitfire snobbery, a lot of german pilots swore blind that they were shot down by a Spitfire when there weren't any about for miles.
Goering once asked german ace Adolf Galland if there was anything he wanted, to which he very cheekily replied that he would like to have a squadron of Spitfires please.
The Battle of Britain is really a vast subject with many, many aspects ( radar, observer corps, Bletchly Park, our command and control systems compared to the German night fighter command system ect) but I find it plus the rest of WW2 ariel and navel warfare endlessly fascinating, especially lately the Pacific theater with such great planes as the Hellcat, Corsair and Lightning, must have something to do with all those Airfix kits of WW1 and WW2 planes I used to build as a boy.
P.S. Near the end of the war two Spitfires landed on an airstrip just outside of Brussels, the two pilots got out and shock horror they kissed and held hands as they walked away, one was an RAF fighter pilot and the other was his wife who was in the ATA, Air Transport Auxiliary and had just delivered a photo recon Spitfire, I think they then went on and had a much delayed honeymoon!

 

[Foxbat]

Another fine yet little known plane is the Hawker Sea Fury. I think this story sums it up as a worthy successor to the Seafire.

Sea Fury vs MiG-15 - the true story - Royal Aeronautical Society

Paul Beaver FRAeS sheds new light on a classic air combat encounter from the Korean War in 1952 - where Royal Navy Sea Fury piston-engine fighters, shot down a North Korean MiG-15 jet. But was the correct pilot credited for the kill?

www.aerosociety.com

 

[paeng]

Films are art forms, and thus unlike documentaries and re-creations are not meant to give accurate portrayals of historical events. That said, their success lies in their ability to accomplish their producers' intended goals.

 

[CupofJoe]

I have no problem with Art getting involved in history. I like JFK as a film, but I don't think it accurate or reliable...
As for documentaries, I'd argue that documentaries might try to be objective and even believe they are but almost certainly they are not. They are a tales told from and for a point of view. Recreations even more so, as they usually have to be visually entertaining as well.
The best I hope for is that they don't get the basic facts wrong [and even then, they may be debated and contested].
No-one source should be used for anything like history. The more the better, especially if you can get the "other-side" of the argument.
But then you have to check where the multiple sources got their information. Too often on the internet, it is almost a circular chase with source A, citing source B citing source C.... citing source A.

 

[BigBadBob141]

I don't mind Hollywood writers stretching things a bit, and I don't mind slight changes from book to film as some books could never be filmed as they were written.
But I hate it when they go over the top and add really stupid things, giant mountain sized stone humanoids having a fight ( The Hobbit, part one ), really is this the best you can come up with when you have a perfectly good book to adapt in front of you!
But when it comes to history they really should make at least some sort of effort to be as accurate as they can, within limits and budget am not expecting perfection here, but really telescopes and gun powder in the time of King John ( Robin Hood, Prince Of Thieves ) come on pull the other one, what was the moron who wrote this c**p thinking at the time and what the hell was he smoking!
But the really sad thing about all this is that people who don't know any better absorb it all like a sponge and believe every bit of it, if it's on the big screen then it must be true!
P.S. I knew someone who swore blind it was all true and would not believe for one moment when I told them it was based on a fictional book, and started to get upset when I persisted so I had to give up, that a version of "The 39 Steps" they had just watched was all completely true and based on solid facts, I think because some idiot had stated so at the start of the film, the 1978 Robert Powell version!

 

[Foxbat]

But the really sad thing about all this is that people who don't know any better absorb it all like a sponge and believe every bit of it, if it's on the big screen then it must be true!

This, for me, is the biggest issue. There’s artistic interpretation and there’s complete nonsense, often with very little to separate the two.

It reminds me if the story of the producers of Das Boot looking for money to make a movie on Stalingrad from the German perspective. Yes, they were told in Hollywood, they could have the cash, but only if they gave Stalingrad a happy ending. Needless to say, they went elsewhere for investment.

Of course, I don’t know if this story is actually true, but why worry about this particular piece of history when few others in the movie industry seems to?

 

[BigBadBob141]

I don't imagine any film about Stalingrad from the German point of view could ever possibly have what could be described in any way as a happy ending, and don't forget it wasn't only Germans fighting in Russia, there were some poor Italian soldiers stuck there as well!
P.S. What ever those planes were that attacked the sub right at the end of Das Boot they sure weren't allied bombers, other then that it was a very good film, the closest I've seen that gives you an idea of what it was like onboard a war time u-boat!
As modern film and TV goes I think both "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band Of Brothers" get the closest to actually seeing what combat is like from the soldiers point of view!
I don't know how accurate it is but as WW2 war films go I really enjoyed "Monument Men", I recommend it.

 

[Hyba]

How well does Cinema do in portraying history, Famous historical figures , Peoples , places and events major and minor ? Which films do a good job with this regard and which film do a poor job . What factors come into play in how these things are portrayed?

Recently watched Allied and found the historical setting of it - at least visually - very hard to believe. In fact, it became evident that none of the Casablanca scenes were filmed in Morocco at all, which is understandable, but also a shame since that left the movie open to lots of errors, like getting the clothing wrong, or getting the architecture wrong. In any case, I understand the movie was meant to pay homage to Hollywood's golden days and films like Casablanca, Notorious, and the like, so I suppose some glamour and not-so-accurate smoothing-over was part of the plan all along. I also noticed costume design was mostly focused on our two main stars, which could explain the lack of attention to detail elsewhere. I believe in the background of one particular cafe scene, you could see a man wearing what looked like Egyptian traditional clothing. Unfortunately, most articles on the historical accuracy of the movie (unsurprisingly) focus on the couple themselves, or wartime England. But the movie was okay despite all of its errors. Can't say I was a big fan of the ending, though!

I think when it comes to cinema, there's a certain mix of entertainment, audience, and propaganda that has traditionally been poured into the final product. Hollywood right now seems to create movies mainly for American/Western audiences, which makes it important to ensure that they're telling stories that these audiences would approve of, enjoy, and see truth in, at least to some extent (of course, keeping in mind that truth is subjective). It's also political, in many ways, and reflects the current socio-economic & political environment in at least the US, if not much of the Western world.

 

[Narkalui]

I confused when I started reading your post @Hyba because for a moment I thought you were talking about Alien*

*It's still early