[February 4, 2016] Growing up most of my friends and I didn’t see many films because we simply couldn’t get our dads to drive us to the theater (our town didn’t have a movie theater). After my first movie in a theater at age 9 watching the original King Kong (1933), we were not inclined for another similar scary experience, much less a military movie.
Last night while flipping channels on our new widescreen television I came across one military movie I’d seen many times … Battle of the Bulge (1965). This epic war film attempts to compress the World War II battle that lasted almost a month and was fought across three countries into a film of less than three hours. After watching it, including a movie intermission, I remarked to my wife that I didn’t enjoy it very much this time.
She asked me why. Was it the lack of authentic military equipment or the acting, she asked? I can forgive the filmmakers for using post-WWII U.S. tanks to substitute for German tanks. I can also overlook the overdramatic acting in battle scenes. But what I had most difficult accepting was that the movie grossly distorted the real story behind the battle and left the viewer with the wrong impression. And I’m not the only one.
To use a well-worn Paul Harvey saying, “Now the rest of the story.” Former President and General Dwight D. Eisenhower denounced the movie for what he saw as gross historical inaccuracies. Eisenhower was actually part of the battle as a senior officer and had considerable insight into what really occurred. Others senior officers from WWII also remarked how distorted the film was and were “mad as hell” it was made.
The Battle of the Budge was based on the true events covering the German Ardennes offensive. The aim of the Adolf Hitler was to launch a counteroffensive in the West against the U.S. and Great Britain, forcing them into an early peace. Hitler would then shift his forces to the Eastern front against Russia and defeat the Red Army. His shifting of his forces westward preordained that the impending Red Army attack in the East would mean the German’s would be overwhelmingly outgunned and outmanned.
None of these important background issues were in the film. Also, there was no mention of the British or Patton’s Third Army crucial role in the battle. The film also portrays the it on the Spanish rolling plains where the film was shot but in truth the battle took place in forested areas. It also doesn’t even explain why it was a “bulge” to begin with. Perhaps the movie should have been called something else but not the Battle of the Bulge.
However, despite the historical inaccuracies, the cast is quite strong and makes the movie worth watching.
[Don’t forget to “Like” the Leader Maker at our Facebook Page.]