Suggestions?

Try enemy at the gates. It’s not bad.

well dont put cross of iron on it. That movie is terrible…Makes all the germans into homos or cowards except for one who is deemed reckless rather than a hero.

Get the 1956 version of stalingrad.

I cant believe an american film company never made a movie about Stalingrad ( i mean a real warmovie like longest day)

how about Flags of Our Fathers. oh wait wroung “eastren” front.  :lol: but waht about Zvezda / star. i never seen it bt it aws made n 2002 so the flim qualty should be good i don’t no if there is an english version or not.

i’m sorry but flags wasnt good.  twas bad, bad enough to make me sad.  for watching it.

another one i watched in russian class.  cant remember its name, but its black and white and about a young man who fights in the war.  he has a woman he likes, is a hero in combat, yadda yadda yadda, the stand up soviet lad.  its really good.  but its in russian with subtitles.

i’ll try to find its name for you.

how about merrils mauraders, sands of iwo jima, hell is for heros.

@JWW:

Try enemy at the gates. It’s not bad.

Agreed not bad. Has some neat scenes especially the opening, “When the other man is killed the other man picks up the gun and shoots.” One guy got the gun and the other guy got the bullets. Yeesh.

Here is an Imdb link you might find helpful http://www.imdb.com/find?s=tt&q=stalingrad or this

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Genres/War/

When in doubt consult Imdb. Very useful site.

HBO: When Trumpets Fade

There aren’t really a lot of movies about the eastern front, that wasn’t our gig.  I’m sure there are plenty of Soviet movies about it, but i doubt they are accurate.

Here’s a link that lists over 600 war movies:

http://www.airmuseum.ca/w2movies.html

Some of my favorites are:

Movies:
Patton
The Longest Day
Battle of the Bulge
Rommel
The Guns of Navaronne
Anzio
Sink the Bismark
Kelly’s Heroes
Big Red One
Is Paris Burning
Tora Tora Tora
Midway
Wake Island
The Flying Tigers

Documentaries:
Victory at Sea
The World at War
WWII in Color
Crusade in Europe

These aren’t about WWII but their great if your interested in WWI
The First World War
World War I in color

TV Series:
Combat
Desert Rats
Black Sheep Squadron
Hogan’s Heroes

WW2 eastern front war movies?

Then you don’t want to waste time with ridiculous western Hollywood-style melodrama sh*t. Forget about the stupid movies from Spielberg and Coppola and go for the real thing:

Come And See" (Idi i smotri) 1985 - directed by Elem Klimov

This movie is so terrifying it will make you sh*t in your pants. It’s one of the best movies I’ve ever seen and imho CERTAINLY THE MOST FRIGHTENING WAR MOVIE EVER MADE!!!

I was completely shocked by everything in this movie. I had never seen a war movie of that kind before, - It really made me sick, - So tragic, so cruel, so raw, so pure, it’s just unbelievable.

Don’t take my word for it- read what other people say about it (hit the links or google)

However, if you only want the Hollywood war-hero & family-entertainment type of war movies, then FORGET about this one, It’s evil.

“Could this be the best movie ever made?”

“perhaps the ultimate WWII film.”

“One of the greatest of all war films”

I have that movie. Its total propaganda. That scene where they put the people in the church and burn them alive and waste countless rounds of ammo shooting them while they are burning is the worst case of shock value in a movie. I hope the director and writer got an oscar for embellishing the facts to make their victimization more palpable.

Initially Einsatzgruppen were employed and did shoot people, but the movie had normal whermacht troops doing that job and that created morale problems and was quickly stopped. In Fact the Reichenau order of 1941 was followed very sporadically, while the movie makes it seem like Germans did this everyday like you and i would eat bacon and eggs.

Imperious Leader:

I have that movie. Its total propaganda.

Incorrect details does not constitute propaganda. If we had to follow that logic then The Guns Of Navarone (and any other war movie) should also be labelled propaganda. Since the movie is not a documentary, the specific incorrect details you mention seem irrelevant for that part.

It’s a Russian perspective, but the Russian soldiers are in no way depicted as heros, and the movie is surely much closer to reality than most US-produced war movies I’ve seen. But yes I would agree that the movie is a very effective piece of vaccination against any possible Nazi brainwashing.

In Fact the Reichenau order of 1941 was followed very sporadically

I strongly believe the Germans burned soviet villages more often than “you and i would eat bacon and eggs”. In Belarus alone more than 600 villages was burned to the ground with all inhabitants during WWII. Between 20-40 billion soviet citizens died. The NEW ORDER (stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Russian and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior) was followed ever more strictly in response to the growing activity of the russian partisans like those in the southern swamp area of Belarus. Yes, atrocities happened on a daily basis and close to 25% of Belarus population did not survive the war.

I believe most people would say that the Nazis went to Russia for mainly two reasons: To kill and to rape (in German: “lebensraum”). Do you disagree, imperious? Will you tell me you believe there was a noble reason?

In my opinion, it’s seems odd to categorize this movie as propaganda. How about “excellent education against glorification of Nazis and assault wars”.

What’s your point?

Movies about the war should be accurate whenever possible they dont have the liberty to twist the truth because people will consider it disengenious as i do.

I strongly believe the Germans burned soviet villages more often than “you and i would eat bacon and eggs”.

The whermacht was not in charge of this. That was the duty of the SS-Einsatzgruppen. Thats why im offended about this movie. They make common german soldiers to be totally inhuman rather than people who were fighting for their nation. The SS were the ones that should be represented in that manner.

Between 20-40 billion soviet citizens died. The NEW ORDER (stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Russian and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior) was followed ever more strictly in response to the growing activity of the russian partisans like those in the southern swamp area of Belarus. Yes, atrocities happened on a daily basis and close to 25% of Belarus population did not survive the war.

Yes and they were caused by many reasons none of which involved the wholescale extermination of populations by common whermacht soldiers. Aside from combat loses which occured on both sides.

To kill and to rape (in German: “lebensraum”). Do you disagree, imperious? Will you tell me you believe there was a noble reason?

This is not about “noble reasons” its about having some measure of historical accuracy and not defaming entire people (AKA “the Germans” as bloodhungry savages) Unless you feel thats what the Germans are in fact?

Osvobozhdeniye ( meaning the liberation) Is a much better movie on this period than any other. I have them on dvd for many years and they are the best of any you will find. The english version ( with subtitiles) is no longer available, but the russian version can be understood w/o too much trouble. These movies had thousands of men, tanks, planes and was filmed in a similar manner as longest day with the panoramic battle views. Goto you tube for some clips.

The movie had no budject because the Soviets felt to accuratly do these movies that no expense be sparred. They employed actual Soviet army units and equipment. Hitler and Manstein and others are done very convincing. My favorite is Kursk because i have never seem so many extras in a movie. Pay the $125.00 and get it.

Sorry I was still editing, I didn’t see you already answered. I removed a few perhaps harsh-sounding things like “whats your point?” etc, to emphasize a more informative based focus.

Movies about the war should be accurate whenever possible they dont have the liberty to twist the truth because people will consider it disengenious as i do

.

But again: NO fiction war movies have EVER been accurate in details, just like there is no Dedocanese island with the name of Navarone. You could even argue: If it is accurate it can’t be fiction. Furthermore: Accuracy in details does not guarantee to make a movie seem realistic, and yet “Come And See” seems to be one of the most realistic war movies made, in my opinion. And for that I don’t care that much about small emblems.

The whermacht was not in charge of this. That was the duty of the SS-Einsatzgruppen. Thats why im offended about this movie. They make common german soldiers to be totally inhuman rather than people who were fighting for their nation. The SS were the ones that should be represented in that manner.

Irrelevant minor details in my opinion, as most German soldiers on the eastern front (a much larger % than German people in general) was Nazi Party members. The extreme circumstances would form them to become “bloodthirsty” Nazis sooner or later. I think that’s exactly the message of the movie (just like the Russian boy surely must become more and more disillusioned and deranged).

This is not about “noble reasons” its about having some measure of historical accuracy and not defaming entire people (AKA “the Germans” as bloodhungry savages) Unless you feel thats what the Germans are in fact?

  Â

I do not accept this argument. No one (not the movie and not me) has defamed the German people as bloodhungry savages. And furthermore such argumention is normally seen as flawed among the researchers in the sciences of history and social science. There has been much controversy on that issue (conclusions about the Germans as people, based on studies on German soldiers or military files) - As I remember; this approach was finally proved absurd by sociologist historian Zygmunt Bauman. (a tough WWII Red Army fighter himself).

….rather than people who were fighting for their nation…

I know very well that many Germans did a good job in fighting for their country, and allow me then to bring a toast to the honorable Admiral Canaris and his brave guys at the Abwehr: These guys were as solid as a rock in times of chaos and cruelty, and such guys (real Germans) have my full admiration and respect!

What was really in the movie defamed as bloodhungry savages is simply the bloodhungry Nazi soldiers depicted. No one argues that all Germans are bloodhungry Nazi soldiers.

In any case; it’s seems very credible and realistic to me that from this young russian boy’s perspective….they are all just Germans! 
…And we know that history (the rules of war) would indeed repeat itself when The Red Army arrived at the gates of Berlin. It’s not that we really need another movie to keep us those atrocities in mind, and to try to imagine a young German girl’s horrible perspective.

Osvobozhdeniye ( meaning the liberation) Is a much better movie on this period than any other. I have them on dvd for many years and they are the best of any you will find. The english version ( with subtitiles) is no longer available, but the russian version can be understood w/o too much trouble. These movies had thousands of men, tanks, planes and was filmed in a similar manner as longest day with the panoramic battle views. Goto you tube for some clips.

The movie had no budject because the Soviets felt to accuratly do these movies that no expense be sparred. They employed actual Soviet army units and equipment. Hitler and Manstein and others are done very convincing. My favorite is Kursk because i have never seem so many extras in a movie. Pay the $125.00 and get it.

Thanx for the recommendations, I googled it. It looks very interesting.Â

This reminds me of when I was a young teenager; I constructed a model panorama of a 1943 WWII soviet airbase in scale 1/72 complete with fighter planes, ground facilities, nightwitches and everything. For this panorama I had build a YAK-fighter with the slogan “Osvobozhdeniya” (or something) written in russian letters on the fuselage. Another one had “To Berlin” in Russian letters. As I’d found these markings originally from tanks, I don’t know if that was really accurate, - but it sure looked realistic.      ;-)

@Colonel:

….rather than people who were fighting for their nation…

I know very well that many Germans did a good job in fighting for their country, and allow me then to bring a toast to the honorable Admiral Canaris and his brave guys at the Abwehr: These guys were as solid as a rock in times of chaos and cruelty, and such guys (real Germans) have my full admiration and respect!

I don’t think any “real” german would of fault for hitler. they shoudl of formed a rebellion agianst him. a person of the nation has the Responsibillity not the right to correct and help its government for the better. and the germnas of te 30’s and early 40s did not uphold thier responibilty but let hitler fo on his rampage leading to more deaths than any other man.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "- (i know this is american) declaration of independence.

Col. Cool:

Irrelevant minor details in my opinion, as most German soldiers on the eastern front (a much larger % than German people in general) was Nazi Party members.

AS i have stated before its propaganda because it makes it seem that basically all German armed forces were involved in random killings of Soviet citizens and this is not correct and a major departure from what happened. Membership in the Nazi party was allways encouraged and many of those who were members actively used their positions to disregard many orders and otherwise not follow them or find convienient excuses why they were not carried out.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/USSR2.htm ( here is a copy of the order from von Reichenau)

But again: NO fiction war movies have EVER been accurate in details, just like there is no Dedocanese island with the name of Navarone.

Yes correct but this is a major issue because the movie is all about the inhumane way that Soviets were treated and to lie about this is of grave concern. Their is a huge difference from the slaughter of people and some stupid guns on an island. Its night and day and the movie is treating the issue very irresponsibly to the extend that people will say " the germans were the worst monsters in history"  If they watch Navarone they will keep eating popcorn and keep laughing at the huge guns because this is not a serious subject for a movie. When a movie is made that deals with such shocking details you have little room for improvisation because the topic is emotional for the viewer. Thats what makes good and effective propaganda. Then it can be twisted to whatever end you desire. I suspect the director/writer had some serious angst against Germans in general and found an easy scapegoat to make his points at the expence of what actually happened.

It also has nothing to do with the other side of the coin where Soviet partisans actively shot and killed any russian citizens who were even suspected of not doing enough against the invaders. Stalin killed far more russians than Hitler. People who made even a remotely disparaging comment were sent to Gulag or worse as active “Reconnaissance by combat patrols” which were groups of men sent into battle with no guns or weapons and Soviet troops would use their position as they were getting shot by Germans to “see” where the Germans were located and gained this information at the expense of tens of thousands of lives. The barbarity of actions during this campaign were on both sides in equal measure, while the movie just makes the one point and offers nothing in a way of counterpoint. This can only prove that some propaganda was being served to the viewer and completely misleading him.

Now you have my opninion as i have yours.

clips from best war movie of all time ( after longest Day)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_7HNqdEWwo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsnCKE3S8nI&mode=user&search=

To Cyan

Cyan said:

I don’t think any “real” german would of fault for hitler. they shoudl of formed a rebellion agianst him. a person of the nation has the Responsibillity not the right to correct and help its government for the better. and the germnas of te 30’s and early 40s did not uphold thier responibilty but let hitler fo on his rampage leading to more deaths than any other man.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "- (i know this is american) declaration of independence

Exactly, and this is in my opinion the most interesting and difficult issue in the entire philosophy of morals and ethics ever since the birth of existentialism. In my view ethics and personal morals must rationally be understood as the personal intention to be loyal towards life and humanity, not just loyal to society. This will inevitably bring the individual moral responsibility in conflict with an immoral society.

The philosophical problem is to define exactly what constitues “loyal towards humanity” and from there deduce (develope) formalized criterias to conclude what actions are morally correct/incorrect. The theory of historism gives criticism to the idea of using such formalized criterias as measurement tolls regarding historical facts, and rejects any moral conclusive statements regarding history.

Morality however, is a social fact, - not merely a rational convention. This means that morals exist in our reality because moral thougts can be proven to have been a basic cause or reason for individual actions in many certain cases all through history. Not necessarely because these actions themself fulfills the criterias of any rational theories or “modern” moral conventions, but rather because no other rational reasons can be found concerning such “altruistic” actions (with loyalty to humanity in general rather than loyalty to any certain human beings in their environment).

In that sense it becomes an important question, not so much why so many Germans followed Hitler (or why so many jews helped killing there fellows), but rather why some people stood up in all the cases where you can find no individual and rational reasons for doing so (ie. altruistic actions with dire consequenses for yourself).

So while it is evident that moral intentions and ethics does indeed exist thereby disproving nihilism to a certain extent, - what is now left is the REAL philosophical problems of ethics: To define the human actions that are morally correct and those that are incorrect. (The American Declaration of Independence does not offer any definitive answer regarding this question).

Another big problem regarding this question seems to be, that even the right intentions, does not always lead to the actions with the best consequenses. So the “right intention” does not necessarely guarantee a “correct action”. Add to this the similar problem: The “correct action” (the action with the best consequenses) is not necessarely proof of a “right intention”.

This paradox leads to problems for the two main theoretical positions in philosophical ethics: Deontology (the correct action is always based on correct intentions) and Consequentialism (the correct action is the action with the best consequences)

                                              –------------------------

After this rather abstract discussion let’s take a new look on Admiral Canaris and his Abwehr staff:

Admiral Canaris and Abwehr DID in fact stand up against the nazis, they DID rebellion against Hitler (they threw a bomb), and their actions surely DID have dire consequenses for themself (they were all executed).

So now comes the tough questions to Colonel Cool: 1. Was the Abwehr “morally correct” concerning their actions?  and 2. was the abwehr “morally correct” concerning their intentions?

Regarding (1), we could more specifically ask: Should the staff at Abwehr have retired when (or soon after) Hitler came to power? Was it morally incorrect that they didn’t retire?

To be honest: I don’t know!

And thats exactly when the toughest paradox of all paradoxes hits me hard in the face: If i can not with certainty positively prove that there actions were truly altruistic or “morally correct”, how on earth can I then postulate with certainty that there intentions were “morally correct”?

To be honest: I can’t!

And now the sceptical moralist has caught me up in a trap with the question: How can I then with my full moral responsibility intact, declare my admiration for Canaris and even bring out a toast for him?

Surely I must now admit I have made a moral projection, and the only answer I can give is: I believe I did it for moral reasons.

It’s true, I don’t know if Canaris had moral intentions, I simply CHOOSE to believe so. I think that all human beings need to believe in moral ideals as facts, specially in times of cruelty. I don’t know what should keep us from barbarianism in a society of barbarians, if not our believes in morality and humanity.

So let me now clarify my statement: The “real” Germans were not the Germans who stayed loyal to Hitler, but the Germans who tried to stay loyal to the principals of humanity.

Morally we are all personally responsible for our conduct and no loyalty to authorities can ever change that. Were are humans, - not puppets!

Boy, that was a long song coming!  ;-)